Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ILFORD CORPORATION BILL [By Order]

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CONWAY AND COLWYN BAY JOINT WATER SUPPLY BOARD) BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — BULGARIA (BRITISH MILITARY MISSION)

Major Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of the British personnel on the Inter-Allied Commission in Bulgaria; and whether they agreed to the sentences recently announced on Bulgarians as war criminals.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The head of the British Military Mission in Bulgaria, which forms the British element of the Allied Control Commission, is Major-General W. H. Oxley. He is assisted by Captain Maund, R.N., and Air Commodore Murray, together with a staff including economic and financial experts. The British Military Mission in Sofia were not consulted by the Bulgarian Government about the sentences recently passed on certain Bulgarians.

Major Lloyd: Why were they not? Was it not part of their function to have been consulted?

Mr. Eden: I know no reason why they should have been. War criminals are a matter for the Bulgarian Government, If there had been any consultation, it would have been with the Allied Control Commission, and not with the Military Mission.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND

Curzon Line

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in view of the fact that Eastern Galacia has never been in the possession of Russia, what evidence he has that the inhabitants to the east of the so-called Curzon line have any desire to be incorporated in Russia.

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend and the House are no doubt aware of the strength of the Ukrainian national movement which has existed for many years in this territory but this is clearly not a matter on which His Majesty's Government can be expected to have detailed, factual and up-to-date evidence.

Professor Savory: Is not the right hon. Gentleman bound by the Atlantic Charter to consult these populations before transferring them?

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend is well aware that this is not purely a Polish-Russian question, but also very much a Ukrainian question. I have not factual up-to-date information on that, though I know there is a large Ukrainian population in this territory.

Mr. Stokes: How did the Government arrive at their decision, if they had not sufficient factual information?

Mr. Eden: As regards the Ukrainian majority, there is, as far as I know, no dispute. If the hon. Member wishes to debate the matter further, I will gladly do so next week.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Is not this purely a surrender to power politics?

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of the Polish inhabitants of Lvov; what proportion they bear to the population of the city as a whole; and if it is proposed to modify the Curzon line in respect of this city.

Mr. Eden: As regards the first part of the Question, the latest available figures are those of the Polish census of 1931. This gave the number of Polish speaking inhabitants of the city of Lvov as 198,200 or 64 per cent. of the total population at that time. It is impossible to make any estimate of the present day figures but it would be unwise to assume that they bear any close relationship to those of 1931. It is also necessary to recall that the city of Lvov has always been a predominantly Polish island in the midst of a predominantly non-Polish countryside. This is clear from the fact that in 1920, at the time when the Peace Conference was studying the question of Eastern Galicia, it was estimated that the population of the area lying between the so-called Lines A and B which included the city of Lvov, contained a population of rather less than 1,500,000 inhabitants, of whom more than half were Ukrainians, a little over a quarter Poles and the rest Jews.
As regards the last part of the Question, the views of the three major Allies on this matter have been expressed in the declaration issued by the Crimea Conference to which I have nothing at present to add.

Professor Savory: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the genuine Russian population of Lvov is less than a half per cent?

Mr. Eden: As I explained before, and as my hon. Friend knows very well, this is not a Russian-Polish problem but largely a Ukrainian problem and the question is whether or not the new arrangement will create more Ukrainian unity than there was before. My hon. Friend knows the difficulties that there were between the Poles and the Ukrainians in this area between the two wars.

Mr. Petherick: Is my right hon. Friend not under the misapprehension of assuming that the Ukrainians are Russians?

Mr. Eden: I did not say they were Russians. I merely said they were Ukrainians.

Warsaw (Relief Supplies)

Captain Alan Graham: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements have been made either by

the Soviet Government, the International Red Cross or by U.N.R.R.A. for the provision of at least as much food, clothing and medical supplies as was possible under the German occupation to the remaining 700,000 of the former population of Warsaw.

Mr. Eden: I understand that relief is being supplied to Poland by the Soviet Government, but I am not in a position to make a statement on the quantities involved. I have had inquiries made and find that relief taken to Poland by the International Red Cross Committee during the later stages of the German occupation was increasingly hampered by the interruption of communications, and has now been brought to a stop by the development of an active battle front between Switzerland and Poland. U.N.R.R.A. has for some time been preparing food, clothing and medical supplies for despatch to Poland, and I am informed that the first ship of supplies from U.N.R.R.A. is in process of loading now. It is expected that shipments will be made on an increased scale as additional port facilities and means of overland transport in Eastern Europe become available.

Miss Rathbone: Have the Soviet Government at last consented to the sending of these supplies by U.N.R.R.A.; and have they also consented to the sending of a personal delegation from U.N.R.R.A., as there is considerable anxiety on this matter among circles which are much further to the Left than those represented by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who asked the question?

Mr. Eden: I am glad of that little instruction. As I understand it, the matter in fact has been settled, but I should like the hon. Lady to put her question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR, FAR EAST

Captain Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the service of telegrams to British prisoners of war in Japanese hands has yet started; and, if so, how many telegrams have been sent and acknowledged.

Mr. Eden: The start of the service of telegrams to British prisoners of war and civilian internees in Japanese hands was


announced to the House on 21st December by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. Up to Friday, 16th February, the British Red Cross War Organisation had despatched 10,000 messages to prisoners and internees. These telegrams were sent at the rate of 1,000 a week for the first four weeks and thereafter at the rate of 2,000 a week, according to plan. In all 42,300 applications to send telegrams have been received by the Red Cross, and they are being dealt with as rapidly as possible. The scheme does not provide for acknowledgments, but it does provide for the despatch of telegrams from the prisoners of war and interned civilians to their families.

Captain Gammans: Have any returned telegrams been received in this country?

Mr. Eden: Yes, some have come in—I think about 87 in all.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE

Anglo-French Relations

Mr. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what renewed offer has been made recently to the French Government for an Anglo-French Union; and what was the reception given to this offer by the French Government.

Mr. Eden: No such renewed offer has been made to the French Government. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Hynd: Do not the Government consider that the time has now arrived when they ought to make a fresh approach to the French Government; or are they convinced that circumstances are so different now, from what they were in 1940, that such an offer is no longer desirable?

Mr. Eden: I think the hon. Member will agree that there are differences between the two situations, and that what is now being discussed is the possibility of an arrangement of another kind.

Locomotives and Wagons

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Minister of Production what arrangements have been made to allocate production facilities for the increased manufacture of locomotives and railway wagons for dispatch to France in order to alleviate

the transport difficulties and shortage of food supplies in that country.

The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): As a result of plans laid over two years ago, the capacity available to the Allies for the production of locomotives has been fully taken up with meeting war requirements, and will so continue for some time. It is hoped that, in the latter part of this year, a considerable number of locomotives will become available for France from United States production. Meanwhile, the strain on the French railways should be lessened, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State told the House on 14th February, by the further number of locomotives which we are sending to the Continent for the use of S.H.A.E.F. The construction of wagons in this country is being expanded to the fullest extent made possible by the available labour and materials, and it is expected that some wagons will become available for France in the near future. In addition, it is hoped that wagons will be produced for France in the United States and Canada, while wagons are already being sent from the United States for the use of S.H.A.E.F. We are also sending materials, components and tools to enable more repairs to engines and rolling stock to be executed in French workshops.

Mr. Granville: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he has consulted the Anglo-American and Canadian Production Boards to, see whether a greater allocation of labour, man-power and materials can be given to this vital question, and, by this means, enable France to get more food?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. Allocation of rolling stock and locomotives has been the subject of combined plans for two years, and I think all capacity is being fully utilised.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that allocation of locomotives for the use of S.H.A.E.F. is not, in itself, sufficient, inasmuch that the great proportion of the very few locomotives which the French have got has been taken over by S.H.A.E.F.?

Mr. Lyttelton: That is, of course, so, but it brings indirect relief.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCHANT NAVY

Interned Seamen, Germany

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether under the provisions of Article 72 of the Geneva Convention arrangements will be made for the exchange or repatriation of some of the British merchant seamen who have been interned in Milag Nord Camp in Germany for upwards of four years and more.

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, as far as lies in our power.

Supplementary Awards (1914–19 War)

Mr. Lakin: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport what progress has been made in reassessing the 3,000 cases due for supplementary awards payable in respect of merchant seamen killed or injured in the 1914–18 war, in order to bring them in line with what is now payable under the Royal Warrant.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): A thousand pensioners have already been informed that they are to receive a supplementary award. Payments at the revised rates started in these cases on 19th February. The supplementary award will, in all cases where it is granted, be paid as from last October. In all cases where a supplementary award is made, it will be paid from the 1st of October last.

Mr. Lakin: Is it not a fact that this matter has been under consideration since August, and does not my hon. Friend think it is time it was dealt with?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The administrative detail is very complex. No time has been lost avoidably, but certainly we want to deal with it as quickly as we can.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHOSLOVAKIA (GOVERNMENT)

Mr. Petherick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make a statement on the position of Dr. Benes' Government since Dr. Benes resigned his presidency in 1939 and was reinstated with the help of His Majesty's Government, in view of the fact that Czechoslovakia has now been cleared of enemy troops.

Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government have since the summer of 1941 regarded the juridical position of the President and Government of the Czechoslovak Republic as identical with that of the other Allied States and Governments established in this country. I see no reason why the complete liberation of Czechoslovakia, when it takes place, should affect this situation.
Meanwhile Dr. Benes, in a recent broadcast to the Czechoslovak people, has stated as follows:
We shall place back in your hands our mandate which was assigned to us here abroad by the course of events and we will submit to you the results of our labour. It will be for you, our people, to decide what is to be done then, and Czechs and Slovaks will decide in common.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN REPARATIONS (MILCH GOATS)

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the shortage of milk which is estimated to last until after the war, part of the German reparation in kind will include 100,000 much goats for Scotland and 1,000,000 for England, Northern Ireland and Wales.

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend will be aware that, at the Crimea Conference, it was agreed to set up a commission for the compensation of damage caused by Germany to the Allied countries. Pending inter-Allied agreement as a result of this commission's deliberations, I am unable to say what forms German reparation will take.

Commander Locker-Lampson: I thank my right hon. Friend very much for his answer and trust that goats will not be forgotten.

Mr. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that it will be no advantage to anybody in Europe or the rest of the world to create a vast devastated area in Central Europe?

Mr. Eden: We are getting far from the goats.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Deceased Officers (Over-issued Pay)

Mr. Norman Bower: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware of the distress caused to parents of officers


killed on active service owing to the practice of requiring repayment of small amounts of over-issued pay, in respect of the period between the officer's death and the end of the month in question; and if he will now consider changing this practice and forgoing repayments of small sums over-issued in those circumstances.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): When a Royal Air Force officer is killed on active service it is the duty of the Air Ministry to prepare a statement of Service liabilities and assets and to pay any balance thus arrived at to those entitled at law to receive it. If the outcome of the officer's Service account is a claim against his estate no action is taken if the claim is less than £5, or in any event, if the estate is less than £100 or indeed where there are dependants, if the estate is less than £2,000.

Mr. Bower: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the distress caused by asking for these payments is disproportionate to the amount of money involved, and that the vast majority of taxpayers would far rather forgo these small sums than that such distress should be caused?

Sir A. Sinclair: There are no cases in which parents are called upon to meet a claim from their own resources. The only circumstances in which a claim in respect of over-issued pay or any other liability is made is when the deceased officer has bequeathed an estate which is well able to meet the deficit.

Captain Sir William Brass: Has this policy been changed recently, because I have a case where a great deal of distress has been caused by a claim for small sums after a boy has been killed?

Sir A. Sinclair: I am not sure what my hon. and gallant Friend means by "recently," but it has certainly been reviewed from time to time in a more generous sense in the course of the war.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister consider getting this practice stopped completely, and draw a pen right through these accounts? Is he not aware of the inhumanity of asking for these repayments? I have sent a case this morning to the War Office and it is distressing to parents to get letters of this kind.

Sir A. Sinclair: I cannot answer for another Department, but, far from our prac-

tice being inhuman, we have made it steadily more generous during the war.

Overseas Service (Married Men)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Air why, having regard to the fact that overseas tours in the Army take no account of marital status, nor is weight given to it in the Government's demobilisation plan, the overseas tour for single men in the R.A.F. is four and for married men three years.

Sir A. Sinclair: The current instructions which govern the length of overseas tours in the R.A.F. were issued in 1941, that is to say, long before the Release Scheme was formulated. It was considered reasonable to give married men unaccompanied by their wives, some advantage over single men and married men who had their wives with them. The merits of this arrangement are, I think, fully recognised by the Service.

Air Training Corps

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary' of State for Air the total number of Members on the A.T.C. Welfare Committee; and how many of these are Conservative, Liberal and Labour Members of Parliament, respectively.

Sir A. Sinclair: Six of the 44 members of the A.T.C. Central Council of Welfare are Members of this House. Three of them are Conservatives; one is Labour, one Liberal and one Liberal National.

Sir W. Brass: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the disappointment which exists in the ranks of the A.T.C. owing to the small intake of personnel into the R.A.F., he will consider devising a plan for exchanging some of the more advanced personnel of the United Kingdom squadrons of the A.T.C. with their counterparts in the Dominion Empire after the war, so that some of those who have passed various proficiency tests can have an opportunity of seeing flying conditions in different parts of the Empire.

Sir A. Sinclair: I will certainly bear this possibility in mind.

V.A.D. Nurses (Identity Cards)

Captain Sidney: asked the Secretary of State for Air why V.A.D. nurses have had R.A.F. 1250 identification cards withdrawn and civilian identity cards substituted; and why such nurses have been


invited to sign a declaration that they have been in possession of R.A.F. identity cards by mistake.

Sir A. Sinclair: V.A.D. nurses serving with the R.A.F. retain their civilian status. Royal Air Force identity cards had, however, been issued in error to some of them and in order to regularise the position, instructions were recently given for the withdrawal of these cards and for the issue to all V.A.D. nurses of appropriate identity cards for civilians serving with the R.A.F. The instructions did not call for a declaration of the kind referred to in the second part of the Question. I am, however, looking into the matter.

Air Service Clerk (Overtime Claim)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Air why no settlement has been effected of the claim made by Mr. Cecil Grant, an Air Service clerk, grade III, in respect of overtime worked between 6th December, 1941, and 10th February, 1942, while serving with the Works Directorate in Singapore, although the claim was made to his department on 10th October 1942, and has been the subject of frequent representations by the Civil Service Clerical Association since 12th February, 1943; and whether he will now ensure that payment is effected without further delay.

Sir A. Sinclair: I regret the delay which has taken place in connection with this claim and I have given instructions that immediate steps are to be taken to effect a settlement.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Prestwick Aerodrome

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production, as representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, whether he is aware of the widespread Scottish concern which has arisen from the Minister's recent pronouncement that it is the Government's intention to close down Prestwick aerodrome immediately the main British airport is ready; and whether he will give a categorical assurance that there is no intention to close down Prestwick aerodrome and that it will continue to function.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): My noble Friend has never made the statement attributed to him in the Question. He has stated and I think it is generally agreed that the main terminal for international services, trans-Atlantic and other, must be near London, which will be the destination of the bulk of the traffic. Until such a terminal has been provided, Prestwick will continue to be used as a terminal in connection with trans-Atlantic flying. Even when the London terminal is in full operation, it will be necessary to maintain alternative airfields for occasional use when weather conditions preclude access to London. Prestwick would probably be one of these. My noble Friend has also indicated that provided the amount of traffic offering justified it, some trans-Atlantic services would very likely stop at Prestwick for the convenience of travellers wishing to embark or disembark in Scotland.
Although the Question is directed to one specific Scottish airfield, I think it is relevant to point out that it is the intention of the Government that in framing their plans for internal air services, Scottish interests shall be adequately served, and that Glasgow will certainly occupy an important place in this network of services.

Mr. Woodburn: May I apologise for the misunderstanding? I agree that the Minister did not make this statement himself, but it was made by the Minister of Aircraft Production in the Debate. I regret the inference in the Question.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot allow that to pass without saying that the Minister of Aircraft Production never made a dogmatic statement of that kind.

Mr. Bowles: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of an agreement that has been reached between the United States and Eire, under which all incoming planes to Europe and outgoing planes to America must land on the River Shannon?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is quite another question.

Government Policy

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production, as representing the


Minister for Civil Aviation, if he has concluded his inquiries into the future set-up of civil aviation in this country; and whether he is now prepared to make a statement of policy.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The answer to the first part of this Question is in the negative. My Noble Friend is anxious to make a statement on Government policy as soon as he can. But the Government consider, and I am sure the House will agree, that this statement should be as informative as possible. As soon, therefore, as my Noble Friend is able to do so a full statement will be made. It will probably be convenient to issue a White Paper.

Mr. Granville: Is it the intention of the Minister for Civil Aviation or of the Government to make a statement of Government policy before the Minister leaves for the South African conference on civil aviation, and will the statement include the future airports?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is hoped that a statement will be made before my Noble Friend leaves for the South Africa Conference. It will be issued as a White Paper, and, if there is an adequate desire, arrangements will be made to discuss it.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY THEFTS

Mr. Stourton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport the value of merchandise misappropriated from each of the four main line railways during the year 1944.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I regret that the figures for the full year are not yet available, but for the nine months ended September, 1944, the amount of the claims paid by the four main line railway companies in respect of loss and theft of goods in transit was as follows:





£


G.W.R.
…
…
235,500


L.N.E.R.
…
…
526,000


L.M.S.R.
…
…
887,500


S.R.
…
…
109,250

Mr. Stourton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the figures he has given clearly demonstrate that the thefts from the railway companies' premises and vehicles have become an organised industry, and has the aid of Scotland Yard been called in to deal with the matter?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, I think we have taken all possible measures to deal with it.

Mr. Shinwell: This is a matter of very great importance affecting many people who are losing their goods, and cannot replace them. May I ask whether any special steps are being taken to deal with these depredations, and whether my hon. Friend will, without any prejudice to the people concerned, consult the various trade union organisations to see whether they can render any assistance?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have had a number of consultations with the trade unions, and we have done everything in our power to strengthen the railway police and to provide measures to deal with it, but war conditions have made it an extremely difficult problem to handle.

Mr. Graham White: Will my hon. Friend consult with other Departments which are suffering from these thefts and assemble all the figures so that we may know what a terrible economic loss we are suffering?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have consulted with other Departments, but what my hon. Friend suggests is a valuable proposal, and I will try to carry it out.

Mr. Watkins: Has the Minister noticed the extraordinary disparity between the loss suffered on the Southern Railway and that in the cases of other companies? Does that mean that the Southern Railway are more vigilant?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I would like to examine that question more closely.

Mr. Gallacher: Instead of allowing this individual appropriation to go on, is it not desirable that the Government should take over the railways as a whole?

Sir Oliver Simmonds: Are the figures given by the Minister an increase or a decrease on those for previous years?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Speaking from memory, I think they are rather less.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST SUPPLY CENTRE

Mr. Astor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport what changes have recently been made in the scope and activities of the Middle East supply centre.

Mr. Noel-Baker: At the beginning of this year, certain changes were introduced in the system of control of imports into the Middle Eastern territories. As a result of these changes, the approval of the Centre is no longer required for a large number of imports; that is to say, the decision to import them now rests entirely within the discretion of the territorial Governments and Administrations. Control will still be maintained by the Middle East Supply Centre over a number of commodities which make heavy calls on shipping, or which are still in particularly short supply.

Mr. Astor: Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs gave an undertaking that no substantial change should be made in these centres without this House being informed? Will he therefore consider issuing a White Paper, or a statement giving these changes in some detail, so that Members can examine them?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. I shall certainly consider that suggestion, and send in writing to my hon. Friend a precisely detailed account of what has been done.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD TRANSPORT

Motor Vehicles (Government Acquisition)

Miss Ward: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport why, in view of the census of laid-up motor vehicles taken in November, 1942, motor dealers are employed and a substantial commission paid to them by his Vehicle and Acquisition Department for locating vehicles suitable for acquisition; what such commission has amounted to since August, 1942; what has been the total cost of this Department to the Ministry in connection with salaries, commissions, travelling expenses, rentals and other expenses; and what was the average cost per vehicle acquired.

Mr. Noel-Baker: My Ministry have used the census to which the hon. Lady refers to acquire by direct approach cars of suitable type and condition from owners who are willing to sell. My Department has, however, largely used the services of the motor trade to acquire motor vehicles, because it is usually more economical to do so. I am unable to give the total cost of these services, which include finding

the vehicles, inspecting, collecting, servicing and delivery. The cost of the salaries and travelling expenses of the Vehicle Acquisition and Compensation Branch of my Department from August, 1942, until to-day, amounts approximately to £64,000. The branch works in my Ministry's offices, and its share of the total cost of the premises and other general expenses is difficult to assess. The average cost of the vehicles acquired and paid for up to 31st January, 1945, is £286, plus £5 for the salaries and travelling expenses of the Vehicle Acquisition and Compensation Branch.

Miss Ward: Would the Minister say how many cars were acquired through the census by direct approach, and how many have been acquired under other procedure; and also whether his Department in fact keep accounts?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Approximately, 1,300 were acquired by direct approach under the census. The total acquired was 13,000, which is to say that about 10 per cent. have been acquired under the census.

Mr. McKinlay: Is it not a fact that controlled undertakings get preference from the Ministry in the acquisition of such vehicles, over independent operators?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I should not like to accept that suggestion. If my hon. Friend cares to put down the Question, I will examine it.

Colonel Lyons: When the Minister spoke just now of using the services of the motor trade, did he mean that the motor trade acquired from the public and then—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."]—and if so—

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am afraid I failed to follow the question of my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. and gallant Member would speak up we might hear his question. I could not hear a single word.

Colonel Lyons: May I put it again? I asked whether the motor trade acquired from the public and then supplied the cars to the Department. If so, what is the difference in the price paid by the trade to the public and the price paid by the Department to the trade?

Mr. Noel-Baker: We assess the payment in each individual case for the services rendered by the trader. As the service varies in each case very widely, it is impossible to make a fixed percentage or a fixed price, but the payments are reasonable on both sides.

Miss Ward: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport what is the total amount paid in compensation to motor-vehicle owners, including commission to motor traders for vehicles acquired by his Ministry since August, 1942; and what is the estimated compensation on the basis laid down by the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, namely, the value of the vehicles immediately before their acquisition, without taking into account any appreciation due to the emergency, which basis had been adhered to previously by the Central Assessment Panel of the War Office.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Up to the last day of January, 1945, approximately £3,700,000 were paid in compensation for motor vehicles acquired by my Ministry. This total includes all the payments made to owners, the cost of repairs and storage, and all fees for the services rendered by dealers. The compensation paid is based on the principles laid down in the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939.

Miss Ward: What kind of check does the Department impose on motor traders from whom it buys?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Our own officers examine the price and condition of the car, and so on, in great detail.

Summer Holidays (Omnibus Services)

Mr. Kirby: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he will, in conjunction with the holidays-at-home policy, consider permitting the use of motor coaches during the summer months for short journeys, say up to 50 miles, so that industrial workers may enjoy portions of their annual holidays in the air and scenery of the countryside.

Mr. Noel-Baker: My Noble Friend is anxious to authorise increased local omnibus services, where such services are required, to enable people who stay at home to enjoy the attractions provided by municipal programmes for holidays at home. I regret, however, that the shortage of

man-power and the need to save fuel and rubber will make it impossible to provide the longer distance services proposed by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Kirby: Would the Minister be good enough to ask his Noble Friend to look into the matter again, as the reply will be very disappointing to a very large number of workpeople?

Mr. Noel-Baker: If we could get more bus crews, and more rubber, we should very gladly do it.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Would it not be a good thing if, instead of running greater distances, buses ran a little later in the evening?

Mr. Noel-Baker: This is a matter we have looked into, and we have made adjustments in a number of cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — B.B.C. BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Captain Plugge: asked the Minister of Information whether he will consider appointing a Member of the House of Lords to the Board of Governors of the B.B.C., in addition to two Members of this House, so that both Houses of Parliament will have a representative on the B.B.C.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): Governors of the B.B.C. are appointed by His Majesty the King in Council, and it is the practice to select them according to their personal qualifications and not on account of their association with particular institutions.

Captain Plugge: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the lack of reference to important public Debates in another place, in the weekly feature of the B.B.C., "The Week in Westminster"; and will he take steps to see that those Debates are referred to?

Mr. Thurtle: I do not think that has anything to do with the Question on the Paper.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Does the Minister suggest by his reply that no Member of Parliament has the necessary qualifications to sit on the Board of Governors of the B.B.C.?

Mr. Thurtle: There are two Members of Parliament acting as Governors, but they are there by accident, and not by virtue of their Membership of this House.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN ATROCITIES (PUBLICATION)

Commander Prior: asked the Minister of Information whether an official publication similar to those published by his Department on various war activities is contemplated on the subject of German atrocities in Allied countries, and, if not, whether he will take steps to ensure the publication of such a pamphlet with the least possible delay.

Mr. Thurtle: No, Sir. The object of these Ministry of Information books has been to provide popular accounts of different phases of the war, and my right hon. Friend does not think that they would be a satisfactory means of making public the results of official investigations about German atrocities in Europe.

Commander Prior: Will there be published in this country, the report issued by the 21st Army Group about the atrocities in Briendonck concentration camps, and also "Le Livre Noir," issued by the French Government on German atrocities in France?

Mr. Thurtle: The question of publication of the report of the 21st Army Group is now being considered by my right hon. Friend and the Foreign Secretary. I could not say as to the second publication mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Air Mail Charges

Mr. Stokes: asked the Postmaster-General what is the pay-load represented by a ton of air-letters; and whether the charge for these letters will now be reduced from 6d.

The Postmaster - General (Captain Crookshank): I am not clear what the hon. Member means by "pay-load" in relation to mail services, but in any case, my intention is to reduce the charge as circumstances allow.

Mr. Stokes: I am sorry to have fogged the Minister. Is he aware that 6d. per

letter works out at £9,000 per ton, and would it not be possible to reduce that charge at least to 2d.?

Mails (Great Britain and Northern Ireland)

Dr. Little: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will take steps to expedite the delivery of the mail between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as delays have occurred which have proved hurtful to business and a cause of anxiety.

Captain Crookshank: There is no avoidable delay in delivering the mail between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but I shall be happy to have full inquiry made into any specific cases of delay which the hon. Member has in mind if he will let me have particulars including the covers of the delayed correspondence.

Dr. Little: I have had many complaints about it, and I can let my right hon. and gallant Friend have first-hand evidence. My own Order Paper for last week was posted in this House on Saturday, 10th February, and did not reach my address in Northern Ireland until Wednesday, 14th February.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Building Labour

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Minister of Works whether, in view of the urgent necessity for building houses and the prevailing shortage of British labour, he will consider utilising the services of the prisoners of war now in this country.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Duncan Sandys): A small number of Italians are at present employed on work connected with war damage repairs and temporary housing in London. Further substantial additions are being made in the course of the next few weeks.

Sir A. Southby: Has my right hon. Friend consulted the leaders of organised labour in this country on this matter, and can he say whether they have welcomed the suggestion or opposed it?

Mr. Sandys: Satisfactory arrangements have been made with trade unions for the employment of prisoners in the most convenient way.

Sir A. Southby: Have not the Russians used prisoners of war to a large extent to rebuild their cities, and could we not do the same?

Bomb Damage Repairs

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Works if men engaged on bomb repair work are paid for travelling time to and from their job.

Mr. Sandys: Men employed on bomb repair work are paid for travelling time in accordance with the conditions laid down in the National Joint Agreement for the Building Industry.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that there are others who are not paid travelling time; and is he aware that there is very strong feeling among them since the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the workmen doing repairs in his room were paid travelling time?

Mr. Sandys: I do not know of cases where the official rates are not being paid. If the hon. Gentleman will let me know of any case I will look into it. So far as I know, workmen engaged on bomb repairs are being paid in accordance with the national agreement.

Sir William Davison: asked the Minister of Works whether any steps have been taken to appoint inspectors who are empowered to visit the various premises where bomb damage repair work is in progress and will report to him as to any dilatoriness or unnecessary delays by the contractor or his employees in carrying out the work.

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Works what action he proposes to take to stop waste of the taxpayers' money, as evidenced by two typical cases of bomb damage repairs, at Ashford, in Kent and Ilford, in Essex, particulars of which have been sent to him.

Mr. Sandys: Inspections of the work of contractors and their men are being continually made by building inspectors of the Ministry of Labour as well as by officers of the local authorities and the Ministry of Works. We are all the time taking new steps to tighten up the organisation. Nevertheless, having regard both to the pressing nature of the work and the shortage of experienced supervisory staff, there will, I am afraid, always be

individual cases of waste or inefficiency. I have reason to believe that these cases are becoming progressively fewer. I should, however, be misleading the House it I were to hold out the slightest hope that in so vast an enterprise they can be eliminated altogether.

Sir W. Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these cases of dilatoriness, about which Members get many letters from observers, are greatly resented by the great majority of the men, who are doing splendid work? Could he not strengthen up his inspectorate to enable him to get to know of things which ordinary members of the public see when they pass the houses?

Mr. Sandys: We do what we can in the way of inspection, but this bomb damage repair work is an enormous undertaking. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that in any one week there is liable to be work going on in as many as 100,000 houses. We can only carry out "spot checks" and sample inspections.

Sir W. Smithers: Arising out of Question 41, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these cases are only typical and that there are many others? Would it not be better to give the money to the householder who has been bombed out, and let him make his own arrangements for the repair of his house?

Mr. Sandys: I dealt with the second point, which is quite a different question, in an answer last week. In regard to the first point the hon. Member sent me these "two typical cases" as he calls them. One was an anonymous letter to a newspaper. The other I only received yesterday and have not yet had time to investigate.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Is this cause of complaint not due to the removal of personal responsibility and direct initiative from the thousands of builders who have previously supervised this work, and would it not be wise, when possible, to employ small builders in London who are now idle in many cases?

Mr. Sandys: As I explained in reply to a Question by my hon. and gallant Friend last week, thousands of these small builders are, in fact, being employed on this very job.

Temporary Hutments

Captain Gammans: asked the Minister of Works (1) what is the average cost of the different types of temporary huts being erected in the London area;
(2) how many temporary huts have been completed and occupied in the London area; and how many are expected to be ready for occupation by the end of April.

Mr. Sandys: The approximate average cost including components, fixtures and the work of erection is £490 for a Seco hut and £380 for a Curved Asbestos hut. About 800 huts have now been completed, of which nearly 600 are occupied. If the present programmes of local authorities remain unchanged about 3,000 should be completed by the end of April.

Captain Gammans: Is it not a fact that experience is showing that the cost of these huts and the number of man-hours involved are very little less than those involved in putting up much more permanent and much more useful buildings?

Mr. Sandys: That is one of the reasons why more are not being put up.

Oral Answers to Questions — HYDE PARK (RATS)

Sir W. Davison: asked the Minister of Works whether he is aware of the infestation of Hyde Park by rats and, in particular, of the island which used to be a breeding ground for wildfowl; what action is being taken to deal with this matter; how many rats were destroyed in accordance with the Ministry of Food Infestation Order of 1943; and whether any report was made to the Ministry as required of local authorities under the terms of the Order.

Mr. Sandys: My hon. Friend is mistaken in thinking that the provisions of the Ministry of Food Infestation Order of 1943 apply to Hyde Park. I am advised that the number of rats in the Park is not abnormal and has probably decreased in the last few years.

Sir W. Davison: Is it not a fact that owing to the large number of rats on that island in Hyde Park, the wild fowl which used to breed there and were a great

feature of the landscape, have ceased to breed there; having been driven off by the rats? Does the Minister not think it wrong that his Ministry should allow this infestation to take place in a Royal Park, when all the London boroughs are being urged to put a stop to infestation in the interests of the food supply?

Mr. Sandys: My hon. Friend appears to be getting very worked up about this. I have made inquiries about the matter, and I am told that boatmen on the Serpentine have not noticed any unusual number of rats, and that rats are being killed at the rate of two a day.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR REBUILDING (LABOUR AND MATERIALS)

Sir W. Brass: asked the Minister of Works whether he is satisfied that labour and materials in sufficient quantities will be available after the war in Europe to complete not only the rebuilding of bombed-out dwelling-houses but other destroyed buildings within a reasonable time after the cessation of hostilities; and, if not, whether he will consider importing labour from Germany into this country for this purpose, in view of the fact that Germany started this war and is responsible for the destruction wrought in the country.

Mr. Sandys: It is quite clear that for some time after the end of the European war the supply of building labour will fall very far short of our needs. I do not anticipate any insuperable difficulty in securing an output of materials sufficient for the building programme which it will be possible to undertake with the limited amount of building labour which will be available in the immediate post-war period. As regards the use of German labour, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Deputy Prime Minister on 14th February, of which I am sending him a copy.

Sir W. Brass: Does the Minister's answer indicate that he thinks that, within a reasonable time, these buildings will be rebuilt as well as the dwelling-houses?

Mr. Sandys: It is a question of priorities, and as I explained in my answer, we are going to be extremely short of building labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Personnel (Letters to M.P.s)

Mr. Driberg: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that Form S 272, revised July, 1943, posted in all ships of the R.N., states that the use of any methods of seeking redress or ventilating a grievance, other than by the usual Service channels, is a breach of discipline; and if he will cause this notice to be reworded so that it does not appear to debar officers and ratings from communicating with their Members of Parliament about Service matters which have been taken up through the usual channels without success.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): As I informed the hon. Member in correspondence, the procedure for securing redress of grievances in the Navy is defined in Article 10 of K.R. & A.I. which is summarised in the form mentioned. I do not consider that it would be desirable to make any specific exception to the rule that complaints should be represented through Service channels, but as I assured the House on the 7th February, in practice no disciplinary action would be taken against officers or ratings for making representations to their Members of Parliament after having attempted, without success, to ventilate a genuine grievance through the usual channels.

Mr. Driberg: Since this notice has been revised once or twice, would it not be possible to revise it slightly further in order to remove the obvious contradiction between the wording of the notice and the First Lord's assurance to this House?

Mr. Alexander: The question of revising an instruction of this kind certainly could not be confined to the Royal Navy, because the same type of instruction applies to all the Forces, and before there was any general revision of that kind we ought to have some proof that the ventilation of grievances through the Service channels is, as a rule, so bad that it is creating a large and widespread grievance in the Services.

Mr. Walter Edwards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a large amount of dissatisfaction in the Navy about this proposed ban on communications to Members of Parliament? Will he inform the House exactly what he means by "genuine" complaints having to be made

through Service channels, before men are allowed to communicate with their Members of Parliament?

Mr. Alexander: I should say that a genuine complaint is a complaint of a real injustice in one form or another, or of lack of welfare provision, which they want to have ventilated, and Which they have not been able to have redressed through the Service channels. But even my hon. Friend, who knows so much about the personnel of the Navy from experience, would not claim that all the Service personnel are angels, or anything near angels.

Mr. Edwards: Many of them are.

Mr. Alexander: Yes, many of them are. But there is no real evidence before me yet of a widespread grievance. If there is any such evidence, I shall be ready to consult with my Service colleagues.

Mr. Astor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many W.R.N.S. receive the impression in their training establishments that to write to a Member of Parliament is a disciplinary offence? Will he make it clear that they have this right, and that they will not be penalised if they exercise it?

Mr. Alexander: The officers of the various commands are perfectly au fait with the regulations.

Mr. Astor: But the W.R.N.S. are not.

Mr. Driberg: I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mail Service

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in order to improve the efficiency of the naval mail service, he will consider the appointment of an expert co-ordinating authority comparable to the Director of Army Postal Services.

Mr. Alexander: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answers given to the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) on 27th September, 1944, and 24th January, 1945. The arrangements for the transmission of naval mails are superintended within the Admiralty by the Fourth Sea Lord, who is assisted in this work by a senior naval officer and staff specially appointed for this purpose.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that there are still avoidable delays in the delivery of mail to ships abroad; and is it not necessary to have one expert co-ordinating officer at the head of the Fleet mail service, instead of having the present divided control?

Mr. Alexander: The Fourth Sea Lord has the assistance of a senior naval officer, who has personal experience all over the world in this matter, and he is generally assisted by two Post Office officials, attached to his staff.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: There is nobody who is specifically responsible.

Royal Naval College (Educational Tests)

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, after each periodical examination for the entry of naval cadets, he will have published the marks obtained by the candidates as is the practice for entry into the Civil Service and the Royal military colleges, starring those to whom scholarships are awarded.

Mr. Alexander: I regret I am unable to depart from long-established practice and publish detailed results of the educational tests for entry into the Royal Naval College. The present practice was devised to prevent the encouragement of educational "cramming" in young boys.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The paper famine no longer exists; and, as the lists of marks obtained by candidates for Sandhurst and Woolwich are published, will my right hon. Friend reconsider this matter?

Mr. Alexander: I see no need to reconsider it.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Civil Employment

Sir A. Southby: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why the functions of the Royal Naval and Royal Marine Civil Employment Committee were transferred to the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Alexander: The change was made because it was thought that the functions could be carried out more effectively if full use could be made of the machinery of the Ministry of Labour and in particular of the Appointments organisation of that Department.

Sir A. Southby: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is not only the privilege but the duty of the Admiralty to assume responsibility for providing jobs after the war for ex-naval officers and men; and would not their interests be better looked after if he maintained this duty, instead of turning it over to the Ministry of Labour?

Mr. Alexander: It has been felt, after due consultation with the Ministry of Labour, that that Ministry's Appointments Branch has a very wide knowledge of appointments available, and, of course, we shall continue to keep in touch with them.

Sir A. Southby: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many naval officers and ratings have been appointed to the Appointments Office in Sardinia House to assist in the placing of ex-naval personnel.

Mr. Alexander: Two officers, no ratings.

Sir A. Southby: Could my right hon. Friend say what staff the officers have got, and whether they are naval or civilian staff?

Mr. Alexander: There is no staff attached to them. It is the same practice which is followed by all the Service Departments.

Royal Hospital School (Headmaster)

Commander Prior: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what were the reasons for the appointment of a civilian instead of a captain R.N. as head of the Royal Hospital School.

Mr. Alexander: The appointment of a headmaster as head of the Royal Hospital School, Holbrook, was one of a number of measures designed to raise the educational standard of the school and to widen its curriculum.

Education Classes (Travel Facilities)

Mr. David Eccles: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will grant to naval personnel the privilege of payment of fares to and from education classes similar to that granted by the Army and the R.A.F.

Mr. Alexander: I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that this concession has now been granted to naval personnel.

Sweets (Canteen Prices)

Mr. Douglas: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to what extent chocolates and sweets are obtainable by persons serving in the R.N. at lower prices when they are afloat than are payable ashore; and what is the nature of the difference.

Mr. Alexander: There is no difference between the price of chocolates and sweets bought in naval canteens on ships and in shore establishments and that paid by the ordinary public. The reason for this is that although the sweets are supplied to the N.A.A.F.I. at duty free prices, the rates of duty on the dutiable content of the sweets varies from 2½d. to about one-eighth of a penny per lb. It would be very difficult for the N.A.A.F.I. to apportion the duty on small purchases and the duty paid price is therefore charged. The profit thus accruing is reflected in the amounts distributed to the men of the Fleet and the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust.

Viscountess Astor: Would it be possible for the First Lord to take off the tax on chocolates for the Navy, as he takes off the tax for drink?

Mr. Alexander: I think that question had better be addressed to the Department dealing with Customs and Excise.

Viscountess Astor: Will the right hon. Gentleman back me up in that?

Mr. Walter Edwards: Will the First Lord say how long the tax on drink has been taken off for the Navy?

Mr. Alexander: I would like notice of a question about the exact period.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRIMEA CONFERENCE

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Prime Minister what machinery for consultation is to be set up by the United Nations in order to carry out the policy of the Crimea Conference.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I have nothing to add at Question Time today to the declarations already published.

Mr. Granville: Has my right hon. Friend had any indication that the Government of France are likely to co-operate with this machinery; and will the Foreign Secretaries' Committee be a consultative body, or will they meet for special purposes?

The Prime Minister: That is already comprised within the scope of my general answer.

Mr. Shinwell: As regards the part of the Yalta decision that refers to bringing speedy relief to the liberated territories has any machinery been created, in view of the urgency, to deal with the matter?

The Prime Minister: I said that I had nothing to add at Question Time to-day to the declarations already published.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATLANTIC CHARTER

Mr. Petherick: asked the Prime Minister whether Article 2 of the Atlantic Charter which declares that the Powers desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned applies to Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland.

The Prime Minister: The Atlantic Charter is a guide, and not a rule.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES, INDIA AND BURMA (WELFARE)

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the troops serving in India and Burma still complain about the unsatisfactory welfare conditions in these theatres of war, asserting that little improvement has followed upon Lord Munster's recent visit of inquiry; and what action has been taken to meet these criticisms.

The Prime Minister: Much has been done since my Noble Friend's visit, and more will be done continuously, to the best of our ability, under the conditions which prevail.

Captain Plugge: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great lack of radio receiving-sets in the South East Asia Command, and will he take steps to send 10,000 sets out immediately for the troops there?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend consider evidence which I will submit to him on this matter?

The Prime Minister: Certainly, I will consider any evidence. I received a report from my officer, General King, two or three days ago, and I have carefully selected the points which seem to require


attention, and have sent them to the various Ministers concerned. I hope in the near future to receive the replies, and to have action taken accordingly.

Mr. John Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that those people—not many—who tried to hide the true facts from Lord Munster will not be able to do anything to prevent the necessary action being taken?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware that such a charge had been made against any of our officials or officers out there, but I think the ordinary processes by which our Government make their decisions effective will be sufficient to ensure that a decision taken with the full approval of this House is not obstructed.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE CELEBRATIONS

Dr. Little: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that on the cessation of hostilities a week-day will be set apart for prayer and thanksgiving, with a cessation of all work and the closing of all licensed premises in the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister: I hope and believe that when the time comes we shall celebrate a victorious peace in a manner worthy of the British nation.

Dr. Little: Will my right hon. Friend, in fixing the day, take account of the strong feeling in the country that the day should be a day of rest from all toil, and of sobriety, wholly devoted to God in recognition of His goodness and mercy to us?

The Prime Minister: It is a little premature to go into all the details in advance of the actual moment being reached.

Viscountess Astor: Does not the Prime Minister realise that if we are to celebrate it in a proper manner, we have to begin now to prepare, because the drink trade is already making plans to get our men drunk on the one day when we should be on our knees thanking God for victory?

The Prime Minister: I really think that these misgivings are exaggerated—very much exaggerated. The Noble Lady is very much inclined to be sensitive on these

points, perhaps more sensitive than the general mass of the community, or their representatives.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the Prime Minister use his great office to discourage this blasphemy that people have in their minds, that the Almighty has any vested interest in war at all?

The Prime Minister: That really raises questions far beyond the scope of Question Time.

Mr. Glanville: Is the Prime Minister aware that if he carries out the second suggestion in the Question it will be anything but a day of prayer and thanksgiving? Has the Prime Minister ever heard, on the wireless, a song entitled "I'm going to get lit up, when the lights go on in London"?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Honey Production

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Minister of Food what was the total amount of bee-feeding sugar or candy issued throughout Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1944; and how many hives of bees he estimates this covered.

The Minister of Food (Colonel Llewellin): Approximately 3,500 tons of sugar, and approximately 385,000 hives.

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Minister of Food what proportion of the 6,000 tons of honey consumed in 1944 was imported and what proportion was home-produced.

Colonel Llewellin: No accurate figures are available for the consumption of home-produced honey, but it is estimated that, of the total quantity of honey consumed in 1944, approximately equal amounts were provided from home and overseas sources.

Prosecutions (Magistrate's Comments)

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Minister of Food, in view of the remarks made by Mr. Rowland Thomas, K.C., magistrate at the Old Street Police Court, when dismissing two prosecutions initiated by his Ministry, why the prosecutions were initiated and instruct his officers not to act as agents provocateurs.

Colonel Llewellin: As a result of complaints that sales in excess of the maximum prices were being made at the shop


in question, test purchases were made. The officials concerned in no way provoked the offences?

Sir H. Williams: Having regard to the comments of the magistrate that one of the officials knew the proper price was 1s. 6d. and paid 2s., was it not a most improper act on the part of the official?

Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir. The official going in always knows the proper price. If we get complaints about a shop continuously overcharging, the official goes in and has instructions not to provoke or in any way plead for a sale, but just ask to be served and pay what price is asked.

Sir H. Williams: In this particular case, was it not admitted in evidence that the proper price was displayed, and, therefore, there was no attempt at an offence on the part of the person prosecuted?

Colonel Llewellin: This particular prosecution failed, as my hon. Friend knows.

Children's Coupons

Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Food if he has any information as to the extent to which the food coupons of children of the ages which would entitle their parents to receive allowances if, and when, the Family Allowances Bill becomes law, are now being used.

Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir.

Released Stocks (Northern Ireland)

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Food whether he will give an assurance that he has assigned to Northern Ireland its full quota of food supplies stored in prospect of invasion which are now being released; and the nature of these supplies of food now available.

Colonel Llewellin: These special stores of food are being re-absorbed into the national stocks of which, I can assure my hon. Friend, Northern Ireland will get its fair and proper share.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR ACCIDENT, CORLEY, NUNEATON

Mr. Bowles: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Air if he had any statement to make concerning the aeroplane crash on houses near Nuneaton early yesterday morning.

Sir A. Sinclair: This regrettable accident, the cause of which is being investigated, occurred in the early hours of yesterday morning, when a Wellington aircraft on a cross-country training flight crashed into some houses on high ground at Corley, near Nuneaton. The crew of three and five occupants of the houses were killed. Details of the damage to property have not yet been reported. I am sure the House would wish to join with me in expressing sympathy with the relatives of those who lost their lives.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can tell the House what the weather was like when the aircraft took off?

Sir A. Sinclair: All such matters will come before the court of inquiry, which is already sitting.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES)

Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW re-ported from the Committee of Selection: That they had appointed the following Members to serve on Standing Committee A: Sir Alfred Beit, Mr. Bellenger, Mr. Lionel Berry, Mr. Bevan, Mr. Norman Bower, Commander Bower, Mr. Bowles, Mr. Brooke, Captain Bullock, Mr. Burke, Mr. Butcher, Captain Cobb, Mr. Colegate, Mr. Driberg, Mr. Ness Edwards, Mr. Walter Edwards, Colonel Sir Arthur Evans, Captain Gammans, Lady Megan Lloyd George, Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris, Mr. Granville, Mr. Gretton, Major Sir Derrick Gunston, Viscount Hinchingbrooke, Mr. Hogg, Sir Austin Hudson, Mr. Hynd, Wing-Commander James, Mr. Jewson, Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks, Mr. Hamilton Kerr, Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster, Mr. Lin-stead, Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas, Mr. Manningham-Buller, Mr. Molson, Mr. Murray, Mr. Ellis Smith, Dr. Summerskill and Mr. Evelyn Walkden.

Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW further reported from the Committee: That the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland and committed to a Standing Committee consists of the following Members, being Members representing Scottish Constituencies, under Standing Order 47 (2): The Lord Advocate, Brigadier-General Sir William Alexander, Major Anstruther Gray, Mr. Barr, Mr. Francis


Beattie, Mr. Boothby, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Buchanan, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Allan Chapman, Sir Samuel Chapman, Mr. Davidson, Lord Dunglass, Lieut.-Colonel Elliot, Mr. Erskine-Hill, Sir Henry Fildes, Sir Edmund Findlay, Mr. Dingle Foot, Mr. Fraser, Commander Galbraith, Mr. Gallacher, Mr. Garro Jones, Mrs. Hardie, Mr. Thomas Henderson, Miss Horsbrugh, Mr. Hubbard, Sir Thomas Hunter, Lieut.-Commander Hutchison, Mr. T. Johnston, Sir John Graham Kerr, Mr. Kirkwood, Mr. Leonard, Mr. Lindsay, Major Lloyd, Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew, Major McCallum, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, Sir Murdoch MacDonald, Captain McEwen, Mr. McGovern, Mr. McKie, Mr. McKinlay, Mr. John Maclay, Mr. Joseph Maclay, Mr. Neil Maclean, Mr. Malcolm MacMillan, Mr. McNeil, Mr. Mathers, Mr. Maxton, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore, Dr. George Morrison, Major NevenSpence, Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, Captain Ramsay, Lord William Scott, Captain Shaw, Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. Sloan, Mr. R. W. Smith, Mr. Snadden, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Stephen, Mr. Henderson Stewart, Mr. James Stuart, Sir Douglas Thomson, Colonel Thornton-Kemsley, Mr. Watson, Mr. Watt, Mr. Wedderburn, Mr. Welsh, Mr. Westwood, Mr. Woodburn and Major Young.

Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW further reported from the Committee: That they had added the following Fifteen Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill and the Hydro-Electric Undertakings (Valuation for Rating) (Scotland) Bill): Colonel Greenwell, Mr. Leslie, Mr. Pickthorn, Captain Plugge, Captain Prescott, Sir Stanley Reed, Mr. Ross Taylor, Mr. Shephard, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles, Mr. E. P. Smith, Mr. Spearman, Mr. Storey, Colonel Viscount Suirdale, Mrs. Tate and Sir Herbert Williams.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCOTTISH BILLS

In pursuance of Standing Order No. 80 (4) Mr. SPEAKER has nominated Mr. W. McLean Watson Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, in respect of the Hydro-Electric Undertakings (Valuation for Rating) (Scotland) Bill.

In pursuance of Standing Order No. 80 (4) Mr. SPEAKER has nominated Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, in respect of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill.

Orders of the Day — WATER BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

12.5 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Water Bill is, as anyone can see, a substantial Bill. It is also, inevitably by reason of what it sets out to do, an intricate Bill. It is one which will undoubtedly require close examination in due course, but without doubt, too, it is a very beneficial Bill. I shall ask the House confidently to give it a Second Reading. Fortunately I can say that, in spite of its complexity, there are two good reasons why it will not be necessary for me to detain the House for an unusual or a tedious time in moving the Second Reading. In the first place, this is a Bill behind which lies a specially long period of preparation and consideration, and, if I may say this with respect to the Parliamentary draftsmen, there is no doubt it is drafted and arranged very clearly and in very lucid language. The second reason why I do not feel that it is necessary to make a long speech to-day, or to go through the whole subject-matter of the Bill in detail, is that it does, in fact, follow very closely the proposals in Part I of the White Paper, which was fully debated less than 12 months ago.
I will recall what happened with regard to that White Paper. There was a Motion upon it, which was accepted without a Division. I had the privilege of inviting the House to welcome the intentions of the Government to introduce


Measures under four heads. With regard to two of these we have nothing to do to-day—first, the question of the further extension of public water supplies and sewerage in rural localities. That has been dealt with in the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act of last year and the House will recall the terms of that legislation. The second question with which we have nothing to do to-day is that of a Measure for the proper management of rivers. That was dealt with in Part II of the White Paper and will be the subject of separate legislation dealing with river boards, which, I confidently hope, will be introduced in the course of this Session. So what we are to-day concerned with is a Measure dealing with the other two matters—the conservation and better utilisation of the country's water resources, and the improvement of the administration of water supplies.
I should like to approach this matter in a general way. The number of different topics dealt with in the Bill is very large, but they can be approached under three heads, and I hope these will throw some light on the general scope of the Bill. I must give a little of the legislative background, because here we are dealing, or attempting to deal, with a situation in which the law is in an obsolete and archaic state. The first point is that general Acts dealing with water have been rare—too rare—in our legislation, so rare that one of the important purposes of this Bill is to provide an up-to-date substitute for the general Act of 1847—the Waterworks Clauses Act. As far as water undertakers operating under special Acts are concerned we are still, in some respects, in the position which was described as long ago as 1844–5 by the Duke of Buccleuch's Commission on the Health of Towns. They said, as their first comment on water:
There is no general law applicable to the subject.
With regard to Special Act undertakers that is substantially the case to-day, because the 1847 Act and its successor of 1863 are such that it may still be said, as was said in 1844, that some of the Acts of the local authorities and other undertakers are out-of-date and that there is great need of a simple, speedy and inexpensive procedure for amending them. What led up to that great Act—for it was a great Act—of 1847 was a situation

not dissimilar to what we have to-day, though in a much narrower field. The number of local authorities operating water supply functions in those days was small and, in the main, water supply was the function of special companies. But then too, as to-day, there were individual special Acts conferring powers on groups of people, companies, and local authorities here and there, Acts varying very widely in the powers given and in the balance that was struck between the interests of the community and the interests of the promoters. In 1847, when the Act was drafted, its Preamble recited these principles:
It is expedient to comprise in one Act sundry provisions usually contained in Acts of Parliament authorising the construction of waterworks for supplying towns with water, and that as well for avoiding the necessity of repeating such provisions in each of the several Acts relating to such undertakings as for ensuring greater uniformity in the provisions themselves.
And so then, as we propose now, an Act was brought into operation regulating the relations between undertakers, consumers, highway authorities and so forth in the day-today working of the undertakings. That Act of 1847 is commonly known as the "Waterworks Code." It is not an Act which operates of itself but it becomes operative when it is incorporated, with any necessary adaptation, in the special Act of a particular undertaking. There were a few more Clauses added in 1863 but until to-day there has been no general revision of the Code by Act of Parliament. Many valuable Clauses more suited to modern conditions are found in individual local Acts and some of them are of first-class importance—for example, the right of water undertakers, local authorities and consumers to apply to the Minister for revision of charges, upwards or downwards, which now appears, and will be universal, in Clause 38 of this Bill. But there is no doubt whatever that the local Acts and Orders which were obtained at various times differ very greatly, regrettably and unnecessarily, in their provisions, and the time is more than ripe for a new Code, keeping what is best in the old Clauses Acts and adding what is best in modern legislative practice. That new Code will be found partly in the body of the Bill but, in the main, in the Third Schedule, which Clause 32 makes it possible for the Minister to apply both


to future Orders authorising, for example, particular works and eventually to the existing Acts and Orders, so as to secure the greatest practicable uniformity in the enactments which govern the operation of the individual undertakings.
I must remind the House that this new Code is based on the Second Report of the Milne Committee, presented in April, 1939. That Report formed the basis of the Water Undertakings Bills of 1939 and 1943, which were not in any way condemned on their merits but for which time could not be found in the second House on those earlier occasions. So a first objective of this legislation is, in view of the untidy and unsatisfactory nature of the existing Code, to make a general and comprehensive attempt, after all these years, to fit the Code to modern conditions in a general Act instead of in a series of special and local Acts.
The second main feature of the Bill arises from the fact that, as our history has developed, there have come into existence two main but quite distinct types of water undertakers—first, the earlier in date, those which, whether they be local authorities or companies, operate under special Acts; and secondly those that operate under the provisions of the Public Health Acts. Let me take first the more modern type of undertakers, those which exercise powers under the Public Health Acts. These have come into existence and have developed because of the development, in the course of the nineteenth century, of the public conscience and public opinion on the public responsibility for health. Gradually, in a series of Public Health Acts, effect was given to the view which had been expressed by that same famous Commission, the Duke of Buccleuch's Commission, that there should be placed on the local government authorities the general duty of securing, though not necessarily themselves providing, supplies of wholesome water for the inhabitants of their areas. I can shorten this and the position is, I think, accurately summarised in' this way. By 1872 the position was broadly what it is to-day. The urban and rural sanitary authorities had been set up by the Public Health Act, 1872, and all of them—the sanitary authorities as they were then called, but, as we should call them, the public health authorities—had the duty of seeing that there was whole-

some and sufficient water for the needs of their areas. The duty was and still is to secure that someone provides the water, and, if need be, the authorities had to do it themselves when there was no statutory undertaker already in the field. By these Public Health Acts the authorities were given not only duties but wide general powers to carry out the necessary works. They were subject to Departmental control but, unlike the Special Act undertakers, they did not require ad hoc legislation for new works or other matters.
This duality has given rise to a very unsatisfactory situation in the general state of our law. There are two types of water undertakers who, so far as their powers are concerned, are quite distinct and different. And, of course, while the Public Health Act undertakers were gradually developing and operating, all the time the Special Act undertakers were still operating and new statutory undertakers were coming into existence under special and local Acts. The special Act undertakers are closely limited by the vires in their special Acts. There is this further feature of that type of undertaking, that, while they can carry out only the precise works which their special Act allows, they cannot be compelled even to do that. The Public Health Act undertakers, under the more modern general legislation, have general powers to do whatever is necessary to supply their areas, subject to loan sanction—in the old days from the Board of Health, then the Local Government Board, and now the Ministry of Health. But the special Act type of undertaker needs a new Act of its own before it can even dig an extra well on its land. Subject to correction by my hon. Friend opposite that is, I believe, the position even of the Metropolitan Water Board to-day.
On the other hand, the Public Health Act type of undertaker can exercise its powers only for the benefit of its own borough or district, and that is a limitation which may frequently be wrong from the point of view of engineering or the proper planning of water supplies. For that very reason many local authorities, in order, for the general benefit, to supply an area outside their own area have been driven to apply for special Acts putting themselves into the other category. I think it is clear that there is no logical reason for such differences between the two types of undertakers. The differences


undoubtedly hamper the undertakers, hamper development and have hampered the provision of necessary public services. Consequently—and this is the second main feature to which I have called attention—this Bill contains a number of Clauses which enable all undertakers of the earlier type, the special or local Act undertakers, to do certain things with the Minister's consent which Public Health Act undertakers can do already, with Ministerial consent, of course, but without the need for special legislation.
To give a few examples; There are the power to combine by agreement and form a joint board, which is provided for in Clause 9; the power to construct and maintain reservoirs and other works, provided for in Clause 23; the power to purchase another undertaking by agreement; the power to supply water for trade and agriculture and other non-domestic purposes—an important matter on which I shall say more later; the power to buy land by agreement or otherwise for the purposes of the undertaking; the power to make by-laws against waste or misuse of water; the power to supply individual premises just outside but on the fringe of their limits of supply; and the power to acquire by agreement the right to take water from any source. In this same sphere, the assimilation between the two types of authorities, the Bill gives the Minister of Health default powers, such as he already has against the Public Health Act undertakers, against all special Act undertakers, whether local authorities or companies.
The third and most interesting part of the Bill relates to the very important new powers and obligations which it contains with a view both to enabling the Minister of Health to fulfil the duty placed upon him in Clause 1, and to enabling others—the undertakers themselves, the Geological Survey, the proposed Joint Advisory Water Committees—to fulfil the obligations in the sphere of planning and so forth which the Bill puts upon them. They are powers and obligations which affect both water undertakings and others, and they are in the Bill for the purpose of safeguarding our water resources, securing their proper use, and extending, as we all wish to do, the benefit of piped supplies of water. I can only summarise and give examples, but there is, first, the power to the Minister to approve or to compel

alterations of the areas of undertakings. There is power to secure, by compulsion if need be, a combination of undertakings. We all know that the undertakings are far too numerous, and it is a point upon which my hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden) spoke with force and eloquence in the Debates on the Rural Water Supplies Bill. There is provision in Clause 12 for the giving of bulk supplies. There is the power to the Minister to set up Joint Advisory Water Committees, a change of title to which I should perhaps call attention. They were referred to in the White Paper as "Regional Advisory Committees." Those Committees will consist of representatives of undertakings and local authorities, who will survey needs and resources over a wide area and formulate plans. There is a new power to secure information on the abstraction of water, a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) called our attention on an earlier occasion, and there is power to get information with regard to wells and bore holes. Information is now to be available to the Geological Survey and others who cannot do their work without it, a matter which was referred to before by the hon. Lady the Member for Bodmin (Mrs. Wright). In Clause 14 there is a provision prohibiting all fresh sinkings of wells in certain critical areas except under licence, a matter to which a number of my hon. Friends attribute great importance. One finds in the Bill too that there is a tightening up of provisions against waste, misuse or pollution of water. The Minister is empowered to authorise the compulsory acquisition of water from any source, subject to proper safeguards; and the safeguards right through this Bill have, I can assure the House, been most carefully considered.
There are, in conclusion, three more important matters on which I must say a word or two. Clause 27 creates a new situation and gives new rights—outside the domestic sphere altogether—to industry, agriculture, and for other non-domestic purposes, with a provision for arbitration by the Minister where there is a refusal to supply or the terms and conditions proposed are unreasonable.
Secondly, the House will no doubt have observed that certain provisions which stand now in the Rural Water


Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, are to be made general. Those are the extension of the duty to provide a pipe supply, as opposed merely to a wholesome supply, of water and the obligation put upon undertakers to accept guarantees from local authorities.
In the third place, on these final points, I should call attention to Clauses 29 and 30, which are designed to secure that, as we extend our water supplies, our work and that of the local authorities is not stultified by any failure to connect up the houses to the supplies.

Sir Granville Gibson: May I ask a question? As the Minister is no doubt aware, boreholes receive supplies of water along strata which come to the surface at certain points. Is there any liaison between his Department and the Ministry of Town and County Planning respecting the prevention of building over those areas where the strata are at the ground surface, as such building—housing estates and so on—would stop the supplies of water entering the strata?

Mr. Willink: I am quite sure that we shall devise, as we must in many spheres to-day, that proper liaison to which my hon. Friend refers. Whether it should be specifically provided for in the Bill is, of course, another question.
I would like to say a word about the debt we owe, and have owed for several years, to the Central Advisory Water Committee, under Field Marshal Lord Milne. The House will have observed that that Committee, which was not a statutory body in the past, is now proposed to be put on a permanent statutory basis by Clause 2 of the Bill.

Mr, Alexander Walkden: Will that be the same committee or a new committee?

Mr. Willink: It will be freshly constituted.

Mr. Walkden: Not the same personnel?

Mr. Willink: Not necessarily. A committee of this kind, which should be broadly based and widely representative is, in the view of the Government, indispensable. We propose to make very full use of its knowledge and experience. It will have been observed, no doubt, that

the terms of reference proposed for the Committee give them power to make recommendations and give advice on their own initiative.
A Bill of this nature, as I have said, will obviously require detailed examination, but I commend it to the House as one that, I believe, provides the necessary framework to ensure that the development of our water supplies will keep pace with our needs. I believe that the changes it makes are necessary. I believe that they are the minimum changes which are necessary for speed, efficiency and economy, combined with adequate safeguards for all interests concerned.
I think we have achieved much in this country in the past. We owe a great deal of our health to the work done by our water undertakers in providing safe and ample supplies in our great towns. We are free from cholera—that was one of the scourges that led to the great development in the 19th century. We are, I believe, in a leading position in the world in our almost complete freedom in recent decades from typhoid, and that is largely due to our water undertakers. However, we have this to face, that the demand for water is increasing, not only for domestic use but for agriculture and for industry. We can say, and be proud of the fact, that between the wars the number of houses in the countryside without piped water was halved. But there can be no doubt that in this very important service we need three things: we undoubtedly need more integration; we need more flexibility; beyond all, we need more informed planning, and we should not be blind to the fact that one-third of the houses in our countryside are still without a piped water supply.

Mr. Edgar Granville: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman a question? What he is telling us is very interesting, and I realise he is trying to be brief on a very large Bill, but before he sits down, can he give us some indication as to when this Bill is to become effective and when it will get on with the work?

Mr. Willink: I will leave that for the moment. If my hon. Friend thinks that at the present stage we can get on with water supplies, sewerage, and many other things, he is more optimistic than myself about the year 1945. That concludes what I think it is necessary to say in moving


the Second Reading of this Bill. I hope and believe that the Bill is not controversial in any embarrassing degree, and I believe that it is one which the House as a whole will feel should go forward.

Mr. Levy: Before my right hon. and learned Friend sits down, may I ask one question? He said that one-third of the population had not an adequate water supply—

Mr. Willink: I said that one-third of those living in rural districts were without a piped water supply.

Major Mills: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say if the Special Act of the Special Act undertakers will be over-ridden by this Bill, particularly as regards special provisions which may have been put in it for the protection of interests like agriculture or fisheries or, indeed of individuals?

Mr. Willink: That is such a general question that I do not think I can usefully answer it. Undoubtedly, however, there will be assimilation, and there will be modifications in the terms of Acts which are out of date.

12.37 p.m.

Mr. Alexander Walkden: In the first place I want to congratulate the Minister on the fulfilment of a promise. Cynics outside this House sometimes say that we never bother about promises once we have made them, but the Minister, after he had first alarmed me very much by saying that this Bill would be produced "in the not too distant future," has kept his promise so far as the term is concerned, and I thank him. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) must be equally pleased to see this Bill, so that he can have another chance of debating the water question.
I want to say how much we all appreciate the keen interest which he has taken in this subject for many years. With a perfectly open and sensible mind he has approached it as it ought to be approached, and as, indeed, all public services ought to be approached. We have got the bigger Bill promised by the Minister, but I will not say it is very beautiful. The Minister seemed very pleased with it, but it takes us only a very little way forward in the great task

that lies ahead; further, it has some faulty features to which I will direct the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention presently. The Minister has by no means exaggerated the importance of water and the need of an abundant supply. We must all recognise to-day, in the middle of the twentieth century, that all social progress in hygiene and health depends on the abundance of water. We have to recognise that the needs of industry are growing continually, and agriculture is asserting itself in this regard too We are very pleased, because agriculture has become one of our foremost and most progressive industries.
The first point I want to make is that we shall need more water, both in urban and rural areas. There will be the erection of millions of new houses. Not hundreds of thousands, not 75,000 as one of the Minister's predecessors said soon after the last war, but millions more houses will be needed after this war, and we shall want hundreds of millions more gallons of water, to provide those houses with their requirements, not merely for cleanliness and culinary purposes but for sanitation and other uses. That being so, the water question is of growing importance and this comprehensive Bill, as far as it goes, is long overdue.
In our view, this question falls into three heads. I want to amplify what the Minister said. In view of the need for this new water, we must have more catchment of water. Then, of course, its conservation is very important—the Minister is very concerned about that—and there is the distribution of supplies. The Bill deals mainly with the question of supplies. I am very sorry there is no Bill before us at the moment dealing with Part II of the National Water Policy Report, because that concerned the re-organisation of our catchment boards. We are told in that Report that there are about 16,000 of those boards now in existence. They are to be brought together under 19 river boards, more modern, more powerful and more cogent in every way. I think it is a pity we are not able to see that reform coming along, but I am glad to see the Minister of Agriculture listening to this Debate because we may hear from him when he proposes and brings his Bill forward. If he can give us a promise about that, we shall be very glad.
This matter of catching the water will be under the Minister of Agriculture and, in his enthusiasm, he will, naturally, think first of agriculture. I do not know whether he is worried much about urban problems. Will he make proper arrangements for conserving that water in proper reservoirs, because the Minister of Health will want an enormous lot more—and industry too, as well as agriculture? I regret there is to be a divided responsibility on this water question. The Minister of Health is to be concerned with hygiene, but the provision of the water will be in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture. I claim that there should be one supreme authority. There should be a National Water Commission, with power to act, and having the duty to act, continuously. That is the first fault in the present position.
This is a very big task indeed, and it will grow in the future. It is one of the greatest tasks of the glorious times that lie ahead. All the rest of this century will be a time of tremendous progress, and water will have a lot to do with it. I suggest, however, that to place the operative part of the work—or perhaps not even the operative part but the thinking part of it—in the hands of an Advisory Committee, is very inadequate, especially if the Minister is to re-appoint the old Advisory Committee. I join with him in paying a tribute to the work they have done, but I think they have finished their work. If this Bill is the result of their cogitations, I think it is not quite good enough. We do not want any more advice, we have plenty of that in these most excellent reports; we want a Ministry with power to act. I shall plead that that is necessary, because there is so much mutation on the part of Ministers, and because there is so much fluctuation in the pressure that is put upon Government Departments.
This is a job that wants an independent and responsible body to carry it through. Civil servants are not responsible. Subject to the requirements of their Ministers always, they are sometimes not allowed to concentrate on and proceed with their work. But if we have a single body with the responsibilities of carrying on the organisation, surveying the whole problem, and taking charge of all the resources for reorganisation and

reconstruction, then, I think, that work would go on continuously as is needed. Instead of more advice we want early, vigorous action and progressive action and, above all, continuous action. Unfortunately, Ministers come and Ministers go, and good Ministers go faster than the others. I have watched them for years. The average term of Ministers is only about two years, and then they have gone. I am not a gambler, and I would not like to bet on the term of office of the existing Minister, but I feel quite confident in my bones that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is destined for other work in the public interest, and when he has gone I do not know whether his successor will think as he has done. His immediate predecessor was not enthusiastic about the idea, and other predecessors exhibited even less interest. The whole responsibility, as I say, needs placing in other hands. Civil servants are not enough. They are worthy and competent, and have many other great qualities, but their minds are often divided, and they are always concerned about their Ministers; whereas a Commission would have a single task, and would go ahead with that task regardless of Governments coming and going and Ministers coming and going. The work would go on. As it is, we are never too certain whether it would not be subject to Ministerial changes. It is for this reason, that I ask the Government to consider the advisability of substituting for the Advisory Committee an operative Commission with power to act.
I also want to draw attention to certain very faulty features of the Bill. The Minister said he was going in for minimum changes. That is very evident, and indeed they are minimum. They do not spring forward at all. The right hon. and learned Gentleman concentrates on improving the administration of the water supply, but he is not creating anything very fresh, to get that improvement brought about. Instead of that, he is retaining all the existing agencies—he is not even going to liquidate them. Of course I notice that the Minister has the power, but will he use it? There is many a good Act on the Statute Book which is not operative, because of lack of will on the part of Governments and Ministers, and because of influence from reactionary people in the background. Not only is the Minister retaining these


agencies, many of which are quite undesirable, but he is reorganising and strengthening their position.
These concerns are the 149 statutory companies. There is a lot of talk in the Bill about these, and we know examples of some of them, big and little, some of which are good, and some not so good. In Bristol, we have a large company supplying 500,000 people—an enormous concern—and the municipality wants to take it over. The Bill is full of concessions and agreements and so on, but there is no power. That is what is wrong with the Bill. It is feeble; it is all too "goody-goody," too "Will he, or won't he?" too "Can he, or can't he?" That is not the way we want this great problem to be handled. Incidentally, may I say in regard to Bristol that it took an enormous interest in the 1939 and 1943 Bills? A lot of suggestions and proposals were made by Bristol. To my grief our town clerk, a most excellent and valuable public official, died suddenly a few days ago, and although I have the old instructions from Bristol to fight for improved facilities for a water supply, I am without his assistance at the present moment. We feel that loss very much indeed.
In addition to the 149 statutory companies there are about 80 non-statutory companies. I do not see any mention of these non-statutory companies. Apparently they are to be left to run along "on their own," under the various public Acts concerned. Then, I am informed, there are about 1,000 private purveyors of water, and some of us know the sort of things they do. They charge for it, and the people have to pay "through the nose" for it. In some rural areas the people are forced to pay excessively to get a bucket from the water cart, and very often the cart does not come round at all. What is the Minister going to do about them? Is he going to obliterate or liquidate them—I do not mind what word he uses. I want it all done by kindness. I want them got out of the way. They ought to be superseded.
As I have said, there is no power in this Bill. The word "may" appears again and again, not the categorical word "shall." There is no sign of the will to do this or that. The Minister has not given himself sufficient power, has not imposed any duties upon himself to deal adequately with these people. They are people who

do not inspire very much respect. A lot of these companies have been working on a 10 per cent. footing, and have paid that 10 per cent., many of them, on their original capital. I know they have raised a lot of capital at lower rates, and have then paid out at round about 7 per cent. This is very much more than what should be considered reasonable for rent of capital, for any good private monopoly which has a service in which there is no competition, in which everything is made safe and secure. But the Minister, instead of securing powers to himself to dispose of them, and place them under a new authority, is going to strengthen their position. He actually suggests in the Schedule that they may get new capital at rates up to 6 per cent.—6 per cent. on a solid public service undertaking, when municipalities have to work on 3 per cent., and the Government can get any amount of money at 3 per cent.
That is why we want the rate fixed at 3 per cent. Working under a national Commission, they could raise money much more cheaply than any local authority, and certainly more cheaply than any private concern. Some may think that my suggestions about these low rates of interest in the neighbourhood of 3 per cent. are optimistic. I can only say to the House that we have really got to grapple with this question of interest, on the thousands of millions required for the stupendous commitments we are making for the future. The rate should not go above 3 per cent.; in fact it ought to go below. One of the weaknesses during the last war was that the rate was fixed at 5 per cent. and we went right through the war with it at 5 per cent. In fact some local municipalities had to pay 5½ and even 6 per cent. to get money. We in this House must get down to this question of interest. We in the Labour Party are not opposed to a reasonable rent for capital, and to reasonable compensation, when a concern is taken over for public service. But I do ask that 3 per cent. should be considered the rate of interest for public money.
I do not think it is at all optimistic. I can remember a great Chancellor of the Exchequer to whom I think more honour and credit should be paid. He was a man who was not thought of at one time; then he was brought forward and did some wonderful things for this country. Lord Goschen was one of the many Jews who


contributed very valuable services to our country. He broke down the rate of interest on Consols in his time, from 3 per cent. to 2½ per cent., and he was able to do it because we were then enjoying a period of peace, such as we all feel confident we shall have again when this awful war is over. Do let us look to the future, and not get stuck in the precedents of the past. The fact is that the period from the first Jubilee of Queen Victoria—many hon. Members may not remember this, but I am glad to say that I can—from 1887 to 1897, was a period of solid peace, and during that period trustee money accumulated so much in the hands of the people who wanted to place it in proper investments, that the Government could get any amount of it at 2½ per cent. Goschen said to the bond holders "You can either accept my proposals for a reduction from 3 to 2¾ and then to 2½ per cent., or I will, as I can, raise new money and buy you out." And he could do it.
I remember that the Midland Railway raised a lot of money in 1897 on 2½ per cent. debentures at par. The Leeds Corporation raised some millions for public works which they got at 2½ per cent. What is needed is stability for the consolidation of our country and our Empire, and it is not going to be easy to achieve this stability, if we have to get our money at anything much over 3 per cent. I do not think it ought to be more than 2½, but 3 per cent. is good enough to be going on with. I think we shall see the time when people will be glad to part with their money to the Government at 1 per cent. and allow the Government to use it as they think best. I do protest against the Minister making provisions for these private water undertakings to get new money at rates of interest up to about 6 per cent. I know it can be said: "Well, private concerns may have a bit of bad luck; they may have a burst in their reservoir, and many other things like that." In fact, the Minister is making provision to underwrite the interest. If one of these private undertakings suffers some calamity, and cannot pay their full rate—of course they can be called upon to pay the full amount out the next year or the year after—they can call for the money out of the reserve and be tided over their difficulties in that way.
There is another consideration. These reserves provided for in the Schedules

will, of course, be added to the value of these concerns. They will be built up at the expense of the people using water, and as and when any public authority wishes to take over those resources, they will be the property of the company, and the country or the authority will have to pay for them all over again when there is need to recapitalise the concern. We protest against that. It reminds me of much of what happened in London, with regard to water supplies at the end of the last century, until the Metropolitan Water Board was set up in 1902. It was the talk of the newspapers of that period that over £40,000,000 was paid to London water companies which were taken over by the Metropolitan Water Board. Competent engineers of that time estimated that the whole outfit could have been replaced for about £25,000,000. The over-capitalisation of those London water concerns was a very scandalous matter.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister, in reply to a Question, said that the Government were strongly opposed to sharks. Those water companies of the 19th century were sharks, and I am talking about their apostolic successors now. The Minister, out of his tender regard for these fish, has made provision whereby they may not only get new money, but may bank up reserves to provide against a shortage of dividend in any one year, and provide reserves for renewal, maintenance and improvements. We do not quarrel with that in principle, but I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that in the Water Bills of 1939 to 1943, which originated in another place, the ratio of reserves that might be set aside was brought down from 1½ to 1 per cent. after Parliamentary discussion, and the aggregate amount that might be reserved for the benefit of the company was brought down from 15 to 10 per cent. The Minister is trying to perpetuate that 15 per cent. and that 1½ per cent., and I am surprised that he, of all people, should do anything like this. He seems to have copied the Clauses from those old Bills, and not to have taken cognisance of what happened afterwards, after Parliamentary discussion. Those are some of the faults of this Bill. In so far as it carries the matter further, and gives more power to the Ministry to act in the public interest, and to local authorities, it is a step forward, but it is a poor halting feeble Measure, which is nothing like as compre-


hensive as it ought to have been, in view of the enormous task that faces us in the future.

1.4 p.m.

Mr. Levy: May I first thank the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden) for the compliments he paid to me, which I highly appreciate? I listened with great interest and pleasure to the Minister when he was outlining the provisions of this Bill. It is perfectly true, as he has said, that for the last 100 years there has been nothing but tinkering and haphazard, patchwork legislation in connection with this country's water supplies. The result has been that a proper water supply has not been forthcoming. I would like to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, and the Minister of Agriculture, on producing, for the first time for 100 years, a scheme which is comprehensive. I describe this Bill as a Bill of good intentions. I have always agitated that it is not unreasonable in a country like ours, that the human and animal populations should be provided with a supply of wholesome drinking water, which they do not get now and have never got in the past. I do not know whether hon. Members, including the Minister, have read the Women's Institutes' Survey, which was published in August, 1944. It shows that the conditions prevailing in some parts of the country to-day can only be described as appalling. They are much akin to, if not worse than, the conditions in some of the West African villages, about which we hear so much talk at present.
I have always advocated a national water supply, by which I mean that the supply should be of such a character that no human habitation or farm would get other than a wholesome supply of water. I have never been convinced that some of the stomach troubles from which our populations in the rural areas are suffering have not been caused or aggravated by the bad water which they are forced to drink. Similarly, I have never been convinced that the diseases from which many of our animals are suffering have not been caused or aggravated by the putrid, stagnant, impure water that they are forced to drink, and which is so bad that no fish can live in it. The conditions of a farm which has a wholesome water supply, where animals can drink out of a

concrete trough, are not comparable to those on a farm where the water is impure and unwholesome, and has to be obtained from wells. This is not a party matter; it is a national matter. Wholesome water is just as essential to the well-being of the human and animal populations as sunlight and fresh air. I have always agitated for such a supply, and I shall go on doing so until a national scheme comes into being.
This Bill is a Bill of good intentions, but I cannot see how it is going to be effective. I know it will be an improvement, and that it could be made effective, if it could be carried out, and I welcome it because it is a stop forward towards what I have always advocated—the control and centralisation of water supplies. But the set-up I have been advocating is not the set-up in this Bill and, therefore, I feel that a good deal more will have to be done before we in this country can say that we have a healthy water supply. Although I welcome the Bill, as far as it goes, it does not go anything like far enough. The theory in it is good, because it places upon the Minister for the first time, according to the Explanatory Memorandum:
… the specific duty of promoting in England and Wales the provision of adequate water supplies. …, and the effective execution by water undertakers, under his control and direction, of a national water policy.
I doubt the effectiveness of the means in this Bill to provide that end. You cannot provide a national water supply without money. It is an expensive proposition. I often wonder, when listening to the Chancellor and other Ministers talking about handing out millions of pounds for this, that and the other, where all the money is coming from. The hon. Member for South Bristol said that there would be plenty of money after the war for all these things. May I remind him, with great respect, that we are not a creditor nation any more, but a debtor nation? I cannot see where all the money which is needed is coming from, and that is one of the reasons why I cannot see this Bill becoming effective.
Apart from that, I can find nothing in this Bill about the financing of its policy. The only financial provisions that are made in it are for administrative expenses. Here is a so-called national


water policy, which lacks the effective means of making that policy effective. Let me remind the House that there are something like 1,000 water undertakers in this country. Many of them are municipal authorities, with the financial resources of the rates, but a substantial number are private undertakers, some of them quite small, and strictly limited in their financial resources. Of course, they have to run their companies at a reasonable profit. These local authorities are having a tremendous number of commitments placed on their shoulders which have to be provided for out of the rates, and in view of the immense measures of reform coming forward I cannot see how they will be able to provide, out of their rates, sufficient money to bring these essential services to fruition.
Let us take Clause 13—an unlucky number and an unlucky Clause. It gives the Minister wide powers in the event of a water undertaker defaulting. Imagine the case of a small water undertaker. He is called upon by the Minister to extend his area and to provide water in uneconomic areas. The undertaker says, very rightly, that he cannot afford it. Then what happens? The Minister may say he will take it over. But he has not the money to take it over. He has to buy it out. Therefore it is idle to suggest, whatever powers you have, that you can exercise them and ask these private undertakers to do something which it is financially impossible for them to do. If an undertaker fails to give a supply of water adequate in quality and quantity, the undertaker's powers and functions can be transferred to the Minister, or to the county council, and the resultant expenses recovered from the defaulter. Does it really make sense? Again, let me give an example of a small undertaker who is probably quite efficient within his little area and as far as his financial resources are concerned. The Minister says, "I have power to make you do this, that and the other" and the undertaker says, "I am sorry but we have not the financial resources to do it." Is it logic? It is not, but it is in the Bill. It is one thing to take powers of this kind, and another to exert them against undertakers who may well lack the means to do what they should. The implementation of the policy depends not on the State but upon

hundreds of small organisations, many with resources too meagre to carry it out, however good their intentions.
That is one of the outstanding weak spots in the Bill. There is, of course, the Act providing £15,000,000 for rural water supplies, which we passed a little while ago. It was for both water and sewage, and therefore it is divided 50–50, and the only grant they have is £7,500,000. The Minister said once that 80 to 85 per cent. of the population had a tap water supply. Eighty to 85 per cent. of the population live in towns, and towns represent three-tenths of the area of England, Scotland and Wales. Seven-tenths of the areas are practically without any tap water supply at all. No wonder that the towns are congested. What is the use of talking about building houses in rural areas when there is no water supply and no drainage, and of insisting that they shall have baths when there is no water to put into them? I cannot conceive anything more vital to the health and well-being of the country than a proper drainage and water supply. There is this £15,000,000 and there is the need for a rural water supply. It does not touch the urban and semi-urban water services at all. I am not going to blame Ministers. They put forward these Bills from their Departments, and they are right in doing so, and I congratulate them on this great step forward. They have a very unenviable job in trying to open the purse strings of the Treasury in view of all its commitments. If they cannot open the purse strings to the extent that is needed, this becomes a Bill of good intentions, and you come back to doing something perhaps in the old tinkering, haphazard, slipshod manner and this so-called national water supply Measure is no more than a name.
After all, the people do not want plans and blue prints. They do not want good intentions. What they want is a water supply and they have wanted it all the time, and they do not seem to be able to get it. They do not want to have to travel miles for a bucket of water, and there is no reason for it. May I give an instance in which my right hon. and learned Friend ought to take powers? A sand and ballast company which had taken a contract to supply gravel to a local aerodrome for the Government dug a huge hole in order to get it. The water from the surrounding neighbourhood


came into the gravel pit and they had automatic electric pumps working for over 18 months pumping our water resources into the river. They dried up the area, and the foundations of buildings became unsafe. Some roads caved in. There was no law that made them responsible and people had to repair the damage caused by this firm wasting the very resources which my right hon. Friend says we ought to conserve. That has been going on in other parts of the country, and legal proceedings cannot be taken. I commend it to my right hon. and learned Friend and to the Minister of Agriculture to put it forward in the appropriate quarters, and to see that legislation is enacted laying it down that anyone doing wilful damage of this kind should be made responsible for it.
A water supply is as vital as sunshine and air but it is no use having a national water supply unless you have the financial and administrative means to make it real and effective. I can see the Minister and the county councils becoming burdened with these water undertakings which they will have to take over. Sooner or later, this financial issue will have to be faced. Why cannot they face it now? They admit that the need is vital. They have produced a Bill but they have not produced the wherewithal to do it. Why not? This is a National Government composed of all parties. There is no one who would object to a national scheme, which would be so beneficial to the health and well-being of the community. What is the use of teaching your children hygiene in the schools when they have to go back to such appalling conditions? It reminds me of people who live in unhealthy houses who are taken ill and are cured, at great expense, in hospitals and then go back to the same unhealthy conditions. Something ought to be done about it. All that we shall be doing without financial resources is to perpetuate these patchy, inadequate supply services.
The only way to tackle the problem is to divide the country into suitable water regions, each with its authority armed with adequate powers to develop and co-ordinate the services with appropriate State supervision, backing and credit. To try to deal with this through hundreds of small undertakers—I cannot see any large scale amalgamations under this scheme—and to threaten them with the big stick if they fail to do something

which may well be impossible is not a solution at all. I am glad that this comprehensive scheme has been brought in. I think it is a step in the right direction. It is a Bill of good intentions. I am doubtful, in spite of my congratulations, whether the Minister will ever obtain resources to carry them into effect. If he keeps pegging away he may get some help, and nobody would be more pleased than myself, after 14 years' agitation, if at last some step forward was made in the water supply of this country. If I achieve that, I shall have justified my sojourn in Parliament.

1.31 p.m.

Mr. Butcher: Like the two previous speakers, I regard this as a Bill which could have been a really noteworthy Measure. Here was an opportunity for dealing with the problem on large-scale scientific lines, but the Bill before the House does not do that. I believe that it can be made a useful Bill. In my opinion, its back-bone wants strengthening. There is in it far too much "may" and not enough "shall," and it will certainly impose on many undertakings financial burdens which they have not the ability to perform, especially when they have to raise money at 6 per cent. On the other hand, I know how tenaciously local authorities and undertakings adhere to any powers they have. It may be that my right hon. and learned Friend has decided that it is better to hasten slowly, with a large measure of agreement, rather than push everything into the melting-pot in one grand comprehensive Bill which would be in danger of painlessly expiring as two earlier Bills have done.
We say to the Minister that we will support him in making progress, but we want a lot more back-bone in this Bill. We say to the Treasury, too, that we do not think that all this good work can be done on the amount of money provided. The hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) referred to the earlier Bill, which was taken when I was not in the House, and pointed out that it dealt with the two questions of water and sewerage. I feel that this Bill should have running with it, a Bill to deal with main sewerage and drainage throughout the country. Nobody knows whether the proposed Central Advisory Water Committee will be a good or bad committee, and there is no provision in the Bill for it to report to Parlia-


ment. It would be a good thing to keep the Committee and the Minister on their toes by providing that it should report to Parliament. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will take care to see that on the joint advisory committees, the rural areas and the residential urban areas are adequately represented. There has been in the past a little tendency to excessive representation of the industrial heavy consuming areas. There is a peculiar point in Clause 3 providing that, although the members are to be appointed by the local authorities, the expenses of these committees are to be defrayed by the county councils and county boroughs.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health knows that Clause 14 interests me most, particularly in reference to the conservation of underground water supplies. The area which I represent is the water-bearing strata of Lincolnshire, and it is worth while spending a moment examining the position there, because it may help the House to imagine the position in other parts of the country. The limestone rock formations of Lincolnshire are the sources of the water supply of the large Peterborough area, and of the undertaking in my constituency run by Spalding urban district council. We are in competition for our water supplies with somebody who makes the most extravagant use of water. The hon. Member for Elland referred to water-bearing strata being cut into by the excavation of sand and gravel. We have something more to show for our wastage of water. We have watercress beds. What a lot of water it takes to grow a bunch of watercress! Here we have this great industrial population of Peterborough on the one hand, and the large rural area of 60,000 souls and 187,000 of the richest agricultural land in England on the other, and yet their supplies are being lowered because of the excessive wastage of water. Bores are still being sunk. One of them was sunk four-and-a-half inches in diameter 82 ft. deep, as recently as July. Another one with a six-inch bore was 181 feet deep. At another place there have also been 12 bore holes varying from five to eight inches and 120 feet deep, and five of them have pumps connected. From these and other untapped bores there is a good deal of wastage of water amounting to 7,000,000 and

10,000,000 gallons daily. One bore alone is wasting over 100,000 gallons an hour.
What is the result on the supplies of local undertakings? In 1894, when Spalding first put its bore down, there was a flow of 5,000,000 gallons a day. That has steadily declined, until it is now only 2,750,000. One bore, which is well known to the local inhabitants as St. Peter's Pool, which is just outside my constituency, used to flow at the rate of 1,750,000 gallons per day, but it is now completely dry. Yet this area of supply covers 187,000 acres of the best land in England, which is suitable for the most intensive horticultural development. I am satisfied that we shall have to support wholeheartedly my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, whose attendance at this Debate we greatly appreciate, in clearing up the position and preventing this excessive user of water. Clause 14, Sub-section (9) says that no person shall waste any water or abstract water in excess of his reasonable requirements. I find, however, that there is no reference to "waste" or "reasonable requirements" in the definition Clause. The man who grows watercress, who allows an enormous quantity to flow out of the bore holes to his beds, into the drains and on to the sea, considers that he is a reasonable user, but the local undertaking, which has to put in pumps in order to go lower to get their supplies, do not think that it is a reasonable user. I hope that much more strength will be put into this Clause. I know the difficulties. They are due to the old legal position of the past which enables the owner of land to have the right to extract what he will from it. That position cannot be permitted to continue much longer, and the passage of this Bill should see an end to it because we are not likely to have another comprehensive water Measure for a good many years. It would be wrong to conclude ones remarks without paying a tribute to the Minister for this Bill and, in particular, for the Third Schedule. I believe that that will be of enormous advantage to water undertakings large and small.
I would like to say how much I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden) that the rate of interest of 6 per cent. is far too high. I approach the matter from a different angle. I believe that capital is


entitled to a proper return and that capital which is risked should receive a good return. If Government securities, such as Consols, are at 2½ per cent., and a secure sheltered undertaking like the supply of water will earn 6 per cent., what is the ordinary industrialist to offer to attract capital to his business in competitive undertakings? It means that the rates of competitive industry will have to be pushed on to the 10 and 12 per cent. basis. As we go through the Committee stage, let us see that, if Government securities are to remain cheap in future, we shall not have sums of money raised for water undertakings carrying so high a rate of interest as 6 per cent. I think that this is a good and useful Bill, but the Minister and those associated with him have been a little timid because of the fate of earlier Water Bills. If we assist them to put more strength into the Bill and turn some of the "mays" into "shalls," if we stop people wasting water and tighten the whole thing up, we shall do a useful work and the Minister will be pleased that he introduced the Bill.

1.43 p.m.

Mr. Richards: It is interesting to note that the last three speakers have been critical of the Bill. I welcome the Bill for what it is, but it makes only a small step in the direction in which we all wish to go. As the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) said, it is a mistake to refer to this Bill as giving us anything in the nature of a national water supply. It deals only with machinery, and that in a very ineffective way. The Minister pointed out that there were two dominating ideas behind the Bill. The first is that there is considerable chaos in legislation dealing with this matter. We naturally expect that after a century has elapsed since the last comprehensive Measure was introduced. Great changes have taken place in the industrial character of the country; particularly in the grouping of the population, and we are not surprised that the position now is very chaotic. The object of the Bill in the first place was, he said, to introduce some kind of order into this chaos.
The second point he made was that it was an attempt to assimilate the privileges and activities of the various authorities and public undertakings which are concerned with the supply of water. He pointed out that some of those private

undertakings which have got Bills through this House operate in quite a different way from those operating under the general Public Health Acts. The object of the Bill, he frankly said, is to assimilate the position of those undertakings. Up to that point I agree that the Bill is very desirable. Something of the kind was required, or would be required if we were in earnest about a national policy for water supplies. I sympathise very much with the Minister. Unfortunately he has had to bear rather an unusual burden in the last week or two. It is not long since he had to stand at that Box and defend, in every particular, what I am afraid are the many defects of our local authorities. Yet here we are trying to impose new burdens upon the authorities. The only suggestion contained in the Bill is that we should have joint authorities, but I feel very much, as the Home Secretary said when he was replying on that Debate, that one is inclined to get hot and bothered whenever we talk about joint authorities, because they are neither one thing nor the other. It is obvious that the Bill will require a number of authorities to carry it out, if we are to have an adequate water supply.
I only look upon the Bill as I have looked upon all Water Bills, and that is from the point of view of my own country. As is well known, we have plenty of water in Wales, and sometimes our grievance is that we have too much. We feel very keenly that there ought to be a careful and competent survey of water supply in Wales. Hitherto, great municipalities have been allowed—I do not grudge it at all—to put up expensive undertakings and to take our water supply outside our country. They have in a great many cases left the countryside entirely drained of the water that it formerly possessed. Big pipes carry water miles and miles away, while local authorities and people living on the line of the pipes have no opportunity of availing themselves of that water. I should like to know whether the Bill will give power to local authorities who require water to tap the pipes in their territory. It was very short-sighted of the local authorities not to realise what was being done. They now have no claim upon the water, although it passes their very doors.
There is another very serious question that we have to face, and it brings me


back again to the question of an adequate survey. Not only do we want water for domestic purposes, and for drinking, but there is great concern in all parts of Wales about the future supply of electricity to industry. One of the changes during the war has been the establishment of first-class industries in the rural parts of Wales. They are entirely dependent for their motive power upon electricity. It is a very difficult question, I admit, to decide whether to darn some of the valleys in order to provide drinking water for the community or to dam them to create electricity. I do not know any body which can carry out a survey except the competent Government Department. It is difficult to decide between the relative claims of industry for power and of the people who want water to drink. I am sorry that the Bill carries us only a very little way, but if the Minister proceeds to introduce a second Bill to make the first effective, we ought now to give the Bill a Second Reading on the understanding that the second Bill is forthcoming before very long.

1.52 p.m.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: I do not think it is incumbent upon anyone who rises in this House to follow the line of argument taken by his own Parliamentary representative, but I really must agree with what the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards) has just said. As the Minister has observed, this is a big and intricate Bill, but speakers up to now have been dissatisfied with it, because they have said it does not go far enough. I thoroughly agree with them. It is true that the Bill sets out to conserve water supplies and, as the White Paper says, to provide wholesome water supplies. It recognises the necessity to supply water to homes, agriculture and industry. Those are all very desirable objects, but I can find nothing in the Bill which will stop some of the things which are now happening in this connection.
I would refer the Minister to the Question which was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Mr. R. Duckworth) on 16th November, and which is reported in HANSARD. He asked the Minister of Health
whether any Regulations exist to debar a person from sinking a water-well in any part of the country which he owns or occupies.

The Minister replied:
Local authorities and water companies must obtain either the authority of Parliament or my consent to the sinking of new wells, but other landowners have an unrestricted right to sink wells on their own land unless the right has been restricted by local Act of Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1944; Vol. 404, c. 2124.]
I describe that as a Gilbertian situation. People who have to provide water must apply for permission, but private owners of land can go on sinking wells wherever they like. The result is that one man sinks a well and produces x gallons, and then another sinks a well a little deeper, and so the game of beggar-my-neighbour goes on. I hope some steps will be taken to restrict the sinking of wells by private enterprise.
I do not think that the Bill goes nearly far enough. The Minister is to be advised by an Advisory Committee but he does not say what the composition of that committee is to be. If it is to be a committee which has to make available adequate supplies of water, there is no quarrel with that, but what instruments are we to have which will ensure us those supplies of wholesome water? Up to date, I think I am right in saying there is no definition of "pure" or "wholesome" water. Those are very loose terms. My Member of Parliament on the other side of the House knows perfectly well that my water supply is occasionally polluted by streams coming from the filter beds of his local water company. He knows that if he comes to stay with me I can give him a chlorinated bath which smells quite strong, and chlorinated tea, which is not at all pleasant. This dangerous chemical, chlorine, is being put into the water today anywhere and everywhere, and it is not pleasant. In Toronto, where they really have to put it in, I remember how unpleasant it was.
I am living within a mile of one of the purest water supplies in Great Britain, yet each morning when I get into my bath I get this chlorinated product. It should not be left to any ordinary workman to put into our water a dangerous chemical like chlorine. If the Minister allows chlorine to be put in he should set some limit to the amount the water shall contain and provide trained chemical control to ensure it is not exceeded. Another point about this chlorination of water is that I believe it is the practice—I do not


want to bother the House with too many technical details—to put ammonia in first, and then to neutralise, or over-neutralise, it with chlorine. Has the Minister made any investigation into the effect of those chemicals on lead pipes or on brass taps? I am just old enough to remember the scandal about arsenic in beer and how it got in from the lead pipes. The Minister takes power in the Bill to regulate the quality of the taps, in order to prevent leakage; is he taking care that these brass taps, which notably contain arsenic, and the lead pipes as well, are suitably protected? This is not an unimportant point. We can pick up any vitamin pills we like and we shall find that they are said to contain traces of copper. We have done away with our copper utensils and we have gone on to the use of enamelled ware.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): Really, this is the Second Reading of a Bill for the supply of water, and I hardly think that the composition of enamelware or whether vitamin tablets contain copper or not is in Order. The hon. Member is getting a little wide of the Bill.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: I thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I must point out that enamelled goods are coated with glass or a sort of glass, and that glass is somewhat soluble in water. When I was a young chemist our difficulty was to find glass which was not gradually soluble in water. We had to conduct tests in order to find out how much glass was dissolved in boiling water, for example. I will endeavour to make my point, and please let me assure you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I do not want to transgress your Ruling. But there is this danger that we are using chlorine in lead pipes and brass taps. I do not wish to attempt to instruct the Minister's advisers, but I cannot help thinking that there is some gradual dissolving of these pipes and taps, and that might prove, in the long run, to be a very serious matter.
I have previously mentioned the haphazard sinking of wells, and under this Bill that is not stopped altogether. It allows wells to be sunk to a lesser depth than 50 feet. I suggest that such wells are a positive danger. They are merely tapping surface drainage most of the time. I would like the Minister to

say: "You shall not sink a well 50 feet in depth, but you may possibly sink it 200 feet, from the safety point of view." I think he should consider that point. In this Bill it is stated that water must he provided for agriculture, and, having mentioned lead, I wonder where all the sheep-dip which is used gets to. Does the House realise how much arsenic we use during the year to wash our sheep? In small doses arsenic is a good tonic, but like lead, it is a cumulative poison. I think this point should be watched, and that the Minister should take special powers to control the way in which sheep are dipped. I have a good idea that my sheep-dip goes into someone's water supply before it finishes its journey.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, who was on the Front Bench a minute or two ago, represents Southport, which has one of the purest supplies of water, and I think one of the hardest supplies. In these days, when it is possible to supply this country with soft water, I suggest that the Minister should take powers to do that at the source, where it can be done very much better, and much more effectively and very much more cheaply than by individual softening apparatus. It is a simple thing to do. I see in the chemical journals advertisements of softening plants to provide water equal to distilled water. There is no reason why, in the present stage of science, this country should not have soft water. The waste by hard water is enormous. If the Minister gives the country soft water I know perfectly well some of my trade as a soapmaker must go, but I know that the cotton goods made in Lancashire will last longer. Hard water is a waster of soap and of textiles. There is one other point I desire to make. By and large, people in industry, at all events, sink wells for one purpose, which is to get water of a low and even temperature. I ask the Minister to consult his right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power and say: "We are not going to allow you to waste so much water in all those ugly cooling towers, etc. We intend to force you to use the latent heat from your great electric plants to do useful work." That is one suggestion to save water that I make to the Minister.

2.7 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: I am sure we will all agree with the hon. Member


for Heywood and Radcliffe (Mr. Wootton-Davies) that everything possible should be done to see that when public water supplies are chemically treated, it is done in a scientific manner. But I do not feel very happy about his suggestion that the Minister should, himself, take powers to supervise such an intricate and technical matter as that. Rather do I think we should see that public water authorities are organised on a sufficiently big scale to be able to employ thoroughly qualified chemists and supervisors. There must be many large authorities which chlorinate the water, without those who drink it knowing anything about it, but it needs constant supervision, and it cannot be done in a haphazard, rule-of-thumb manner.
I wish to join my views with those of other hon. Members who have found nothing specifically offensive in this Bill, and yet have some regrets that it does not go very far. There are powers in the Bill which could be used, if the will were there, to make considerable improvements in the water supply of this country. I want to know what exactly the Government mean to do with the powers that they are asking the House to grant to the Minister and to local authorities. There is very little indication, either in the White Paper or in the Bill, of the kind of pattern of water supply which the Government think is necessary if the present unsatisfactory position is to be remedied. The thing that strikes one most about the present situation is the patchwork nature of it. I have no criticism to offer with regard to the large and well-organised supplier of water, unless it be that there is a large amount of quite unnecessary and wasteful overlapping and competition between them for sources of supply. But at the other end of the scale, as other hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) have said, there are some shockingly bad water supplies in this country in the rural areas, and I think we should direct our attention to the two-fold problem of improving those that are bad and trying to rationalise the competition and overlapping that exist among the big authorities.
I wish to speak, therefore, of the collection and storage of water. That is where we have to start with this problem. There

is no shortage of water in this country, but we have these anomalies of competition for gathering-grounds, parallel valleys drawing off water for different authorities, their pipes running alongside each other, and big supply mains running through areas which are not supplied at all. We have to organise the collection and storage of water in large areas—much larger than those organised to-day. I think it is the physical facts of the situation which determine the size and shape of the area. I do not think it at all follows that the historical, political boundaries of counties will, of necessity, be the right boundaries for the planning of water resources. The size of a complete gathering ground, or the area of ground under which there is a certain geological formation—these are the things which must determine the right unit for the collection and storage of water. As far as the area of distribution is concerned, that must very largely be determined by the drainage area.
Another reason to which I have already referred, for large-scale organisation, is that the collection, storage and treatment of water before it is ready for consumption are a highly specialised jab, and authorities must be large if they are to have a sufficient number of specialists, men who are competent to design impounding reservoirs, men who are competent to supervise the installation of mechanical equipment, bacteriologists, chemists, and so on. These things cannot possibly be done by the small authorities, and if we are to have a wholesome water supply and to make the best use of the resources of the country, we must have a large-scale organisation for collection and storage. With the present pattern of local government the only way of doing that is by joint boards. They will be large joint boards. I think they must be made up of members of elected authorities. In the recent Debate on local government, an hon. Member mentioned the supply of water as being one of those impersonal things in regard to which joint boards are no disadvantage, and I believe it is to this type of organisation we must look. It may be that sometimes we will find one authority being a member of two different boards. For instance, I can think of one county borough in this country which draws part of its water supply from an underground sandstone formation, and part of its supply from a


joint board with a reservoir in other gathering grounds. It may be we shall have to be quite flexible in our conception of how these boards are to be arranged.
When we come to distribution, I do not think the advantage on the side of the big unit is of necessity very great. In an area which we are proposing should be a joint board unit there are several local authorities which have a perfectly good and sufficient organisation to distribute water. You may have, as, for instance, in the Bunter sandstone area of Nottinghamshire, several authorities each with its own supply organisation, each at the present time with its own wells. I believe that what we have to do there is to have a grouping together of the extraction of the water, and to leave the distribution in the hands of the local authorities where they are doing it efficiently; and where the distribution is not satisfactory, it could be undertaken directly by the big joint board or by another authority—the rural district council or the county council, for instance. It seems to me that there would be an advantage in having distribution in the hands of the smaller authorities, so that direct representation by the inhabitants of a village to their urban or rural councillors may lead to action very much more quickly than if the village which happened to be without water or had an unsatisfactory supply had to apply to a very big authority. It may be that what I have to say on the organisation of water supply would not meet with the approval of all hon. Members, but it is one way of solving this problem.
Does the Minister intend to use the powers in the Bill to build up a pattern of organisation along the lines I have described, and are the powers given in the Bill sufficient? Is it the intention that Clause 8 should enable local authorities to combine for the bulk supply of water without a merging of the whole organisation, including distribution? Clause 9, again, appears to give powers for the acquisition by local authorities of statutory undertakings. I believe that if we are to get any order out of the present chaos, there will have to be a very widespread acquisition by local authorities of privately-owned water undertakings. An hon. Member has already suggested that powers are given for statutory undertakings to be acquired but that there are

no powers to acquire privately-owned water supplies which are not statutory undertakings. I am sure that, if that is so, it is an oversight. In one village in my own constituency, where the inhabitants number about 100, there are three separate distinct water supplies, with their pipes criss-crossing down the village street and their charges differing very much indeed; and they still leave some houses without a supply. That village is within sight of ample water, as is the whole of the constituency that I represent.
I wish to see all these small and inefficient private water supplies bought up by the local authorities. The Minister should make provision so that if a local authority wants to buy up a privately-owned concern, whether statutory or not, the Minister's consent should not be unreasonably refused if the local authority is capable of running the undertaking. A logical outcome of much that has been said in this Debate is that we should recognise that water is a public service of the greatest importance, and that we should not any longer regard water as a commodity which is sold over the counter, for the time has come for the complete public ownership of all water supplies. I do not expect the present Government to insert such a provision in their Bill, but it should be made clear that where a local authority wants to acquire a supply it should be able to do so.
One of the most important provisions in the Bill—which is something which has been lacking in this country for years—is that the Government are to have the responsibility for surveying the water resources of the country. I do not think, however, that the survey will be of any use unless it results in positive planning. I want to see the joint advisory committees and the Central Advisory Committee regarding themselves in the main not just as recorders of information and collectors of statistics, but as the people charged with the duty of planning the way in which areas should be grouped and in which the large joint boards which I regard as necessary should be formed. I know they cannot do that until they collect the information, but they should at the earliest possible time produce a complete plan for the whole country, and that cannot be done unless there is some central body charged with this duty in a much bigger way than is the Central Advisory Committee. A National Water Board has been


advocated. I am not sure that that is the best way, but it is one way. Another way is to set up a Ministry of Water, as has been advocated by the British Waterworks Association. I am not suggesting that, but I believe that the minimum which is needed is a full department of the Ministry of Health, with a Parliamentary Secretary, charged solely with the responsibility for water supply.
This Bill will remain entirely a Bill of good intentions, unless the Government face the financial problem. I was amazed to hear the Minister open this Debate without referring once to the matter of finance. Where there is a poor water supply in the rural areas it is not because the people there do not know it, it is not because the people there do not wish to improve conditions; it is because the rates of the area cannot stand the expenditure which would be necessary to provide a supply. There is only one way of providing an adequate water supply to every house in this country, and that is by taking a nation-wide view of the financial problem, and spreading the cost, which will vary much from house to house, from county to county, over the whole nation—in other words, taking the supply of water off the local rates, and putting it completely on the national Exchequer. If the Government will do that, I believe we can achieve an adequate water supply for this country.
Some hon. Members may fear that having to rely on finance from Whitehall will mean that local freedom of action and responsibility will be gone. Under ideas which are current to-day, the provision for a local authority of more money from Government funds tends to carry with it more control and interference, but I submit that the central solution of the problem of having national planning and preventing stagnation and bureaucracy is to trust the people to spend the money. We cannot achieve a fluid system, with plenty of enterprise on the part of the local authorities, and couple with that national planning, unless we take risks. We have to take risks, it may be of waste, it may be of maladministration in a very few instances; but those risks are worth while, because the only alternative is to put up with the present patchwork system, under which the rich areas have a good water supply and the poor areas have a bad water supply, or else to have a national

scheme managed from the centre, which is bound to lead to stagnation and bureaucracy. If this country faces this problem, and says, "We are going to provide the resources which are necessary for a full and wholesome and constant water supply to every house where it can be brought," it must be done on this basis of national planning, national finance, and devolution of authority to local authorities.

2.26 p.m.

Mr. David Eccles: I am delighted with the Bill, and I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend upon it. Especially interesting to me are Clauses 6 and 7, which give the Minister, at long last, power to require records and information concerning the supply and use of water. It is good news that the Minister has not adopted the recommendation of the Milne Committee in this respect. Hon. Members will recall that the Milne Committee recommended that this information should be confidential, if the person who gave it so desired. I think that would have been a great mistake. It is of national importance that the fullest information regarding water should be available to the public generally, and especially to those experts who contribute to scientific and learned journals. There is a great deal yet to know about our water supplies; and the more people who have the basic data, the better. I hope that if there should be any attempt to return to the recommendation of the Milne Committee my right hon. and. learned Friend will stand firm on Clauses 6 and 7, as now drafted.
Clauses 29 and 30 are of the greatest importance to the rural householder. These Clauses, for the first time, give the local authorities power to compel the owner of a house to connect it with a supply of water in pipes, if the main pipe is reasonably near. I believe that all hon. Members will think that this is a necessary provision. But there is here a financial difficulty. I understand that if the occupier of the cottage is an agricultural worker the owner can get a grant of 50 per cent. towards the cost, under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, but if he is not an agricultural worker, but, let us say, a county council roadman or some such kind of worker, no grant is available. I believe that there is a simple way of overcoming this difficulty. That is that, when the new Rural Workers' Housing Bill comes before the


House, the limit of £50, which is at present imposed on the cost of reconditioning if a grant is to be obtained, should be abolished, at least in respect of the payment for the connection of main supplies with the cottages. It will be a great disappointment to the villagers if, in fact, the water does not come to them, or only goes to the houses of men who happen to be agricultural workers, and not to any others.
I was rather astonishel to hear the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden) complain that there were no powers in this Bill to enable the Minister to do what he wants in the way of compelling a pattern of water undertakings most suitable to the national interest. The hon. Member was obviously making a theoretical speech for nationalisation. The hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson) was not, if I may say so, quite so far off the mark. He admitted that there were the powers in the Bill, but said he did not think the Minister would use them. All over the Bill there are powers quite sufficient to do anything that any hon. Member might want to be done to compel undertakings to amalgamate, to supply in bulk, or generally to improve their systems. If hon. Members want water quickly, and not just a scheme planned according to some political theory, they had much better allow the Minister to use the powers in harnessing the good and bad companies—and there are many good ones as well as bad—which will be a much quicker way to improve the supply of water to the people than by upsetting the whole business and attempting an enormous legal campaign to nationalise all undertakings. Therefore, I consider that, if only on the grounds of efficiency and the question of getting the water to the people quickly, the approach made in this Bill is the right one.
The hon. Member for Skipton suggested that we should take all water off the rates and put it on to the taxes. That, I think, would upset local authorities very much, and, indeed, the differences between one area of the country and another are so great that it is far better to use the experience of the various district councils, as the hon. Member himself said in another part of his speech.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: I want to use the experience of the present undertakings, so far as supply is concerned, but I say

that the only way to sweep away financial trouble is to pool finance over the whole nation, and leave power to do the job of supplying water in the hands of local people.

Mr. Eccles: I am one of those who believe that, unless a local authority is raising part of the money it is spending, it loses its independence and its responsibility. I would like to put this to the Minister. Is it not a fact that the carrying-out of this new water policy, which is so much wanted in the country, really depends on the quality and supply of technical staff available to his own Ministry, to the local authorities and to the undertakers? It is quite clear that, at the present time, this staff is not adequate for the job by a very long way, either the consulting staff, or the engineering staff or the draftsmen. This is an engineer's war, and there are in the Services an enormous number of men who have had great experience of this kind in servicing the Army, and I would ask the Minister to take steps to let these engineers in the Army know something of the scope of the technical employment which is going to be offered by this water policy. I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend to try to let them know as soon as possible the opportunities that will come, and to try to pick out the good men and earmark them, and ask the local authorities to do the same. Unless we have a very big increase in technicians and engineers, we shall not solve quickly this water problem, the framework of which is so well presented in this Bill.

2.35 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: I am sure the Minister is well satisfied with the reception this Bill has received up to the present, as compared with the somewhat stormy passage that the Water Undertakings Bill had in 1943. I would like to make some comments about this Bill in what I hope will be a helpful way, but may I first put in a personal word? As the Minister knows, I am a member of the Metropolitan Water Board and, in fact, chairman of its Parliamentary Committee. The Metropolitan Water Board is, as my right hon. and learned Friend knows, a democratically-elected body which carries out its business in a proper democratic fashion. There has not been time, since the publication of the Bill, for the Board to discuss the


Bill and arrive at a proper decision. As the Minister also knows, previous Water Bills in this House have deliberately excluded the Metropolitan Water Board, but, in this Bill, the Board is included. Therefore, in anything I say here to-day, I am not authorised in any way to speak on behalf of the Metropolitan Water Board. But I speak purely in a private capacity as a Member of the House. I hope the Minister will understand that I am not committing the Board in anything I say, although I have no reason to think that any member of the Board would differ to any large extent from the view which I propose to express.
I think the Metropolitan Water Board which is charged with the duty of supplying Greater London with an adequate supply of pure and wholesome water, has carried out its duties efficiently and well, and more especially during the war years. The time has not yet come to tell the story of how London's water supply was maintained during the period of the war, and particularly during what were very acute stages of the war so far as London is concerned. But, when the time does come to tell the story, I think it will be regarded as one of the really thrilling stories of the war. It cannot be told yet, for obvious reasons.
The Bill, in my opinion, is a useful and important step forward, and I hasten to add, what a number of hon. Members have already said, that its success will largely depend upon the tempo of its operation and the speed with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is able to put its provisions into active operation. I agree, as the last speaker has said, that there may be a serious difficulty in obtaining sufficient technical people to do the technical work. I think I am not far wrong in suggesting that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to add a good many technical people to his own Department in order to carry out the work that this Bill will create. There has been, and there is, much talk going on throughout the country in all directions and in the Press and Parliament, about great post-war changes. People are talking daily about building garden cities, wonderfully laid-out, of creating new towns and of building great blocks of fiats, with lifts to carry people up several storeys. But a good many of these amateur planners, at least, are not giving

much thought to the fact that these projected garden cities will be rather poor and sad places, if there is not an adequate water supply. I notice that the planners insist upon lifts in the blocks of flats, but never seem to tackle the fact that there is going to be a considerable problem for the water authority in the district to ensure sufficient pressure to get the water to the top of these skyscrapers. Unless they do so, these will not be "luxury flats" in any sense of the term.
In addition, masses of people may probably have to be moved to new areas as a result of what has happened during the war. Therefore, it is essential, with regard to these proposed changes, such as the building of garden cities and the moving of vast masses of population to new towns, that the people who have the responsibility of supplying water in those areas, shall know, as soon as possible, what is proposed in order that they can make their plans. There is much talk of the rapidity with which prefabricated houses can be put up, but a prefabricated house will be a poor place to live in if there is not any water supply, and you cannot, by a stroke of the pen, say, "We will put houses here," and expect the local water undertakers to lay water on in a short space of time. These water undertakers should know as soon as possible what their responsibilities are.
I welcome the Bill because it gives some measure of national control. It seems to me to be a courageous attempt to look at the whole problem. The Minister made a passing reference to another Bill which he has promised and which is called the Rivers Bill. If I followed the right hon. and learned Gentleman correctly, he said it was hoped to introduce that Bill in the present Session.

Mr. Willink: Mr. Willink indicated assent.

Mr. Morrison: It would be very helpful to those interested in the provisions of this Bill if, some time before the end of the Committee stage of the present Bill, the Rivers Bill were to be printed, so that we could get the whole picture in our minds and see how these two Bills will fit into each other. It is popular, in some quarters, to sneer at planning of all kinds. One of our newspapers is sneering almost every day at the planners. I suggest that only an idiot would oppose the planning of the country's water resources. I note that the Minister is to set up an Advisory


Committee. I hope that, in setting it up, he will consider a better representation for the water undertakers than there has been on the Advisory Committee which he has had up to now. Out of that committee of 16, I think I am right in saying that the water undertakers have had only three representatives, and, while there may have been one or two others, who are representatives of local authorities which are also water undertakers, the number of direct representatives of water undertakings upon that Advisory Committee has only been three out of 16.
I hope the Minister will look into that, to see if their importance does not warrant their being rather more fully represented on the Central Advisory Committee which the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to set up. Needless to say, the Minister agrees that some use should be made of the Advisory Committee which has been operating up to now. The Joint Advisory Water Committees, under the Bill, are to have their chairmen appointed by the Minister. I would like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, unless some very good reason against it is shown later, he will consider leaving it to the Committee to appoint their own chairman. There is a suggestion that what the Minister is after is that the chairmen of the joint Advisory Water Committees should be representatives of the Ministry, so that the Minister would keep the matter under his care. He might consider whether it is necessary to insist that he shall appoint the chairmen of these committees. It would be more democratic to let them elect their own chairmen.
With regard to amalgamations, there are about 1,100 statutory water companies in the country, and, roughly, another 1,100 non-statutory undertakings, making a total of 2,200 water undertakings altogether. Every hon. Member will agree that it is ridiculous that, in this small island, there should be 2,200 water undertakings. Obviously, as the Minister admits, there are room and urgency for many amalgamations. Many speakers have mentioned that larger areas are needed. I need not remind the Minister that in considering this matter he will be faced with an almost immediate difficulty. A number of water undertakings are coming to this House this Session with Private Bills. I do not

know whether he proposes to stand aloof and allow these Bills, which will come before us in the next week or two, to go through the House as ordinary Private Bills without taking any action with regard to them. This Bill gives the Minister the power to try and secure amalgamations where it can be shown they are for the greater good of the public and the efficiency of the water supply, and a rather difficult situation will arise if in the meantime certain private companies are proceeding to get further powers from Parliament. The House of Commons will expect, in the light of this Bill, that when these Private Bills come before it, the Minister will be in a position to adopt some fairly definite attitude with regard to them. One hon. Member referred to the need for local authorities having a greater say on the question of larger areas. One cannot deal satisfactorily with water problems on a geographical basis; it has to be done on a geological basis.

Mr. Levy: Is it not a combination of the two?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, but in any case the geological basis is much more important than the geographical.

Mr. Levy: They are both important.

Mr. Morrison: There was a case recently where an important county council sent a resolution to the Minister asking that all the water supplies should be put under one undertaking in the county. That would be impossible to carry out unless the Minister gave the water authority concerned an opportunity to go much further afield to the sources of the water. It is all very well to make a decision for another 2,000,000 people to be supplied with a regular and wholesome supply of water, but if water undertakers have to do that they must be given the power to go sufficiently far afield to get the water. Not enough importance has been attached in the past to the geological basis.
I welcome Clauses 6, 7 and 13 of the Bill, because they are much overdue, and it is a pleasure to see that at last someone is going to control supplies. I will not inflict on the House a further speech about this, except to say that in a part of London we are in a very difficult position. One hon. Member spoke about the trouble in Wales where water is more than 50 feet underground. As the law stands anybody


can sink a well and take out as much water as he likes provided he does not sell it to anybody else, and in the post-war planning of new factories, one of the first propositions will be the sinking of a well. If anybody is allowed to sink a well in the post-war world, it will be a question of rushing into immediate disaster as far as the underground water supplies of London are concerned. The underground water in the chalk of London has been falling at the rate of five feet a year during the past 20 years, and is now 100 feet below what it was 20 years ago. If the system under which anyone can sink a well and take water is continued, and it is nobody's business to keep records of how much water is taken, I suggest that the Minister might tighten up the Bill a little in regard to disused wells. Such has been the unfortunate state of the law that a person can sink a well and make use of it as long as it suits him and then can go away and leave it, with all the slime running back into the underground water. It becomes nobody's business. I ask the Minister whether between now and the Report stage he could not consider making it obligatory for disused wells to be properly sealed off and made safe.
There are many other Committee points but I will not deal with them now; I only want to ask a simple question. What is the next stage of this Bill going to be? There are three alternatives. There could be a Committee stage on the Floor of the House, which would be most undesirable. This is a fairly big Bill with a lot of technical points to be gone into. It is not a popular Bill from the point of view of headlines in the newspapers and there are no party politics in it. It is a very useful Bill but it is not a Bill requiring discussion in detail by a Committee of the whole House. The second alternative is to send it to a Committee upstairs such as we had before the war, and if rumour is correct, the Government intend to resume Standing Committees upstairs. I wish the Minister to consider a third alternative. A Bill of this kind might be most efficiently dealt with on Committee stage by a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons. The Minister will find that Bills of a similar character have been sent to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons, with very good results. By that means the Bill

would get through the Committee stage in both Houses at the same time, and it would be a good opportunity for discussing the many and highly technical points which will arise. I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he should use such influence as he has with the powers that be to see that the Committee stage is not taken on the Floor of the House.
My final point is that I would like to see a provision in the Bill that it should be an obligation on the Minister of Health to make an annual report to Parliament upon the water resources of the country, and I am reminded that in the new Education Act there is an obligation laid upon the Minister of Education to make an annual report. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) referred to the need for the public being much better advised with regard to the water supplies of the country, and I agree with him. The ordinary person thinks that all you have to do when you want water is to turn on the tap. He has not the slightest knowledge of how the water comes through the tap and he kicks up a row if he turns on the tap and there is no water. An annual report would afford an opportunity for Parliament, which I do not think would be abused, to have a discussion on water supplies and the progress that was being made towards a more satisfactory state of affairs. The hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson) said that the British Waterworks Association have put forward a suggestion that there should be a Minister for Water. I am not following that suggestion, because there is a tendency already to have too many Ministers, but it is well worth considering whether the Ministry of Health should not have an additional Parliamentary Secretary who would deal with water problems. Several Departments of less importance have two Parliamentary Secretaries. I finish as I began by saying that the Bill represents a useful step forward, but its success will depend largely on the keenness and energy with which its provisions are put into force.

2.59 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I do not think that the Minister has had a good day. The only two speeches that have been anything like favourable are the last two, and I would not even describe the last speech as enthusiastic.


He welcomed the Bill, said the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison), because it was a step forward, but all the other speeches were extremely critical, beginning with that of the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden), who said that any step forward was good but that this was not the kind of Bill we expected or that the country needed. He was followed by the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy), who has made a study of this question and has been urging its importance upon this House ever since he became a Member. He said it was feeble, weak, leaving the position still chaotic. That is not quite how one would expect a Bill to be greeted if it really carried out the wishes of the people. Although this is a matter which concerns the health of the country, and every household in the country, the House has been practically empty all day, even when the Minister was speaking. That is an extraordinary state of things, but I think the key to it is in a phrase which was used by the Minister, and picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol, namely, "I present this Bill to the House and the country with a minimum of changes." That is it—there is "a minimum of changes." The Minister knows the chaotic state of things, he knows the cry there has come from parish after parish about their conditions, and he says: "I will produce a Bill of 104 pages, with long Schedules, but, please, the minimum of changes."
Let me take up another point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol. The first Clause begins with a "shall" but afterwards, as one looks through the Clauses, it is "may," "may," "may," "may." It is a Bill of "mays." I emphasise that for this reason, The Minister very rightly gave us a short history of the water legislation of this country, beginning with the Buccleuch Report of 1842, going on to the Act which was passed in the forties, coming on to the Public Health Acts of 1872 and 1875, and then on to the various local authorities. Powers have been given to local authorities time and again by this House, and how have they exercised them? Where they are wealthy, where they are progressive in their ideas, where they have plenty of money to draw upon, they come down to this House, like Birmingham and Liverpool and Manchester have done, and getting the full power

of the national Exchequer behind them in order to carry out a purely local scheme, and those who are outside the locality have had to suffer.
What is wanted by everyone? Pure water in the house in sufficient quantities for the needs of that house. When we were discussing local government last week the right hon. and learned Gentleman made a plea that I have so often heard made by so many of us on this side of the House, that women should take a keener interest in local affairs, that all these local matters affect the women more than the men and they are in a position to describe the conditions better than the men. Quite right. We have all been saying that. We have all been saying how little the man knows, because he leaves early in the morning and comes home late at night, of the troubles of the woman all day in keeping the house and her family clean and preparing the food for his return. Fortunately, some inquiries have been made. I myself made an inquiry into all these matters, particularly water, and, following upon water, milk throughout Wales, as I have already told the House, in 1937 and 1938. I was assisted by one of the most eminent medical men in this country. We described what we saw and what we heard, and I repeated some portion of that to the House the other day. It drew protests from the other side of the House, and it was suggested that I had no right to say that the conditions I found in Wales I would have found also in England. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) and the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) protested.
I did not then know that the women of this country, who are well organised, had themselves conducted an inquiry in 3,500 parishes, and I do not think sufficient attention has been paid to what they have said. This was an inquiry into the conditions prevailing in their local districts, and they used language to describe the conditions they found which is stronger even than the strongest language I could have used about the conditions in Wales. The women very rightly associate three things for the proper running of the house—water, sewerage, electricity. If the Government are introducing a national scheme why do they not introduce one that covers all three things? We all know that pressure is often brought to bear for the pro-


duction of electricity from the coal mines, but I should have thought that the Government could have worked the reservoirs for the supply of water in conjunction with the provision of electricity, at least to assist the electricity on the grid in that particular district. It is being done in North Wales. We have coal in just one small area, but the bulk of the electricity in North Wales is supplied from reservoirs, and I should have thought the right thing to do was to have a national survey. The hon. Member for North Tottenham said it depended upon geological reasons; the hon. Member for Elland more correctly said that it depended upon geography and geology together. Why not have a complete survey of the country, see what water there is, and then see how best it can be used for the benefit of everybody concerned? There is nothing about that in this Bill. I have observed in other Bills introduced by this composite Government, that they use the word "national" but they do not mean it. In introducing the Education Act they said, "We want a national system of education," but they made permanent the un-national system of education. Clause I begins:
It shall be the duty of the Minister of Health to promote the conservation and proper use of water resources and the provision of water supplies in England and Wales and to secure the effective execution by water undertakers, under his control and direction, of a national policy relating to water.
This is nothing more than an undertakers' and local authorities' policy. Where is the national policy? Nowhere except in that very first Clause.
Now may I go back to the inquiry made by the women? In June, 1943, the British Federation of Women's Institutes passed this resolution:
This meeting is of opinion that the three main services—water, sewerage, and electricity—should be a national responsibility, and that it should be possible to compel local authorities to take necessary action to ensure that adequate provision is made in the country as well as in the town.
"National responsibility." "Compulsion." May I point out that the Minister and his predecessors had either direct compulsory powers or indirect compulsory powers since 1884 or 1885. The Federation asked various institutes to make inquiries. A questionnaire was dis-

tributed, and replies were received from all the English counties, and all but four of the Welsh counties. What did they find?
In Oxfordshire 19 per cent. of the houses investigated share pumps. Twelve per cent. carry their water more than 200 feet. Yet country people are willing to undertake this laborious piece of work because they hope that by exposing the primitive conditions in which country people have to live and work some improvements might be introduced, not just promises. …
They hope that improvements may be introduced, and not just promised. The hon. Member for Elland said that this Bill was a Bill of good intentions. The Report goes on:
They want actual drain pipes, taps, sinks and baths. Many wonder how far the proposed £15,000,000 grant will meet this demand.
The House will remember that last year a great show was made of the fact that in 1934, in order to help the poorer areas, we made a grant of £1,000,000. That stirred up the rural districts to spend another £6,000,000. The Government said, "We will give you £15,000,000." The House did not understand—certainly, I did not—that not a penny of that is to come from the Treasury until after the war. The matter was brought before us as one of urgency. I only found out that this was the case, because of a local instance which came to my knowledge, concerning what is really a rural area although it is a borough. The penny rate there brings in only £18, and there is about one person to every nine acres. In order to get a pure water supply they undertook work which has cost them £5,000 and, all told, will cost them £13,000. When I asked the Ministry to give a grant they said, "Not until after the war."

Mr. Willink: Until after the end of the war in Europe.

Mr. Gallacher: We took that for granted.

Mr. Davies: This town is faced with the alternative that the water there contains so much bacillus coli that the Ministry would not dream of accepting it and they have to go on drinking the impure water, or face bankruptcy. Then the Government talk about a national policy. The report states:
There was very little resignation about the answers. Very few members felt that what was good enough for their fathers was good


enough for them. Broadhembury (Devon) writes, 'The lack of convenience which has been endured by the older people will not be tolerated by the present generation.' Cookhill (Worcestershire) feels that, 'The population is likely to drift until the amenities of water and drainage are made available. So many have already done so.' It is estimated that 80 per cent. of Cookhill's population have earth closets or buckets.
No wonder that people of the countryside are leaving, and that from my country 500 go every year because of the lack of amenities and the decencies to enable them to live properly. The report goes on:
The sense of shame is stressed many times. The majority are intensely ashamed of ditches reeking with the overflow from unemptied cesspits and of fields and gardens used as sewage dumps.
It goes on:
Frampton (Dorset) has 50 out of its 172 houses with bucket lavatories only. It writes, 'Existing conditions are a disgrace to England.' Out of Bangor's 84 houses, 45 have earth closets and householders have to fetch their water from a distance of more than 200 feet. In Cerne Abbas (Dorset), 'Sanitation is deplorable and not much improved since Tudor days.' Most village women are hotly discontented. A number of Institutes report that contaminated wells are still being used daily. Upham (Hants) has no main water or drainage, and five out of seven wells were condemned five years ago. In Clee St. Margaret (Salop) all 56 householders have to carry their water more than 200 feet. The well for drinking-water has no cover, the pump is broken, and pails have to be dipped in. The water is frequently polluted and the matter has been reported to the M.O.H.
I have seen dozens of medical officers' reports condemning water supplies year after year, yet nothing has been done.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that in many of these areas all this is due to the fact that they are under the control of Tory squires?

Mr. Davies: I do not know the politics of any of these places. When I conducted an inquiry throughout Wales, in no single place was the word "landlord" used. But the people knew what powers their local authority had, and knew that their local authority had failed them. They knew that they should have provided sewerage and water, but that they had not done so. The report continues:
The majority of women would rather have water laid on than any other modern laboursaving device. Farley Hill has paid a water rate for years. It has no main water or drainage.

What it is paying a rate for when it is getting neither water nor drainage I do not know. The report goes on to deal with sewerage, and says:
All the sewage at Wickham (Hants), which has 399 households, is emptied into the river. It is an abomination to civilisation.
Those are stronger words than I used about the inquiry into conditions into Wales. We have seen houses erected shortly before the war which had no proper lavatory accommodation. I knew that when going through Wales, I should find conditions which were not confined to my own country. I knew that they would be the same elsewhere. Local authorities had power to deal with these matters, but did not deal with them. There is no more sanction in this Bill than there was in the previous Bill to compel attention to these matters.
This, to a large extent, is a re-enactment Bill, with a little more power taken here and there. What really ought to have been done? Again, take an instance from my country. I have said that there ought to be a complete survey recording the geographical and geological situation. Then have reservoirs constructed and provide whatever is required for the complete area. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Tottenham called attention to Bills going through the House. A short while ago three Bills were introduced, one for Anglesey, with a penny rate of £700, having to undertake for its water supply a cost of £500,000, and no provision whatever made for disposing of sewage. What steps are the Government going to take to deal with a situation like that? The right thing to do was to take a survey of the whole of North Wales. Anglesey is a flat island, with only two hills at the far end. The hills are in Carnarvonshire, where there are any number of lakes and valleys. The right thing to do was to take a survey, and see where you could put your best reservoirs for the supply of Carnarvonshire and Anglesey, and possibly there would have been a sufficient drop to give also electric power for Anglesey and Carnarvon. Then, one would have been talking about a national policy.
Finally, what are the Government going to do about finance? All the time this question is being postponed. All the time new burdens are being placed on local authorities. Yesterday we were discuss-


ing the education burden. Here is a new burden which is to be placed on them. Something else has to be done. How are we going to carry these matters out? One of two things will happen. We will completely bankrupt the countryside by having such a burdensome rate which, instead of attracting industry, will drive it back into areas already overcrowded, or we shall neglect to carry out the very duty we are expected to carry out. That is an impossible situation in which to put us. Go in for national policies. Cover the whole field. You have a national field for the war. You call on men and girls for the war. Let us have one scheme giving us all an equal start and equal amenities, and do not place too great a burden on us. One hon. Member suggested that all the burden should be placed on the Exchequer. I have suggested it myself and the answer was often made, "If you do that, you weaken local responsibility." I do not think so. In all these cases the rate should be limited to a certain amount. Whatever the cost may be, we can say, "There is the burden which will fall on the locality." All the rest must fall on the State as a whole, in order that we may have equal treatment and an equal burden. I ask the Government to withdraw this kind of Bill. They have had plenty of time to think out a real scheme, and it is time we had it before us.

3.25 p.m.

Major York: The hon. and learned Gentleman has, on many occasions, taken it on himself strongly to criticise Measures which have been brought forward by the Government and of the many speeches to which I have listened with interest, I have never known him make an attack as unfair as that which he has just made. He quoted examples from recent private legislation. I should have thought it was just those cases which the Bill is designed to meet. It is in just the type of case produced by the Anglesey County Council that the Bill is designed to allow the Minister to step in and create these joint boards and advisory councils so that this isolated scheming and isolated planning shall not occur in the future.

Mr. C. Davies: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that there was already power to form these joint boards?

Major York: The hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer and he will know that there are two interpretations upon every piece of law. As far as I am aware, the present Bill is a co-ordinator. There was no co-ordination before. It is, to use the word that the Minister used to-day, to integrate the various powers under central direction that the Bill has been produced, and I believe it is in those words that we shall attain the success which the Minister showed he intended to attain. I take a completely opposite view. I believe this to be a very important Bill and a large step forward. I believe that, whereas it has been regarded in the past as the right of every urban citizen to have a supply of water, under this Bill it is to be the right of every rural citizen to have a supply of water, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will make that point adequately clear. There are many other good points. There is one in particular which we in country districts put a good deal of hope in, and that is the position that, if a dwelling-house, or a farm, or even a small factory, is in an area of one supply company, there shall be no difficulty in drawing water from a different supply company if it is more convenient and easier. We have often had to wait years for water to be brought to a certain house, because it was just on the boundary of one water undertaking, which was either unwilling or unable to obtain powers to bring the water there.
While I entirely commend the Bill, I have one or two small suggestions to make. One is in regard to the way in which water borers are to keep records. Water borers are almost a law unto themselves. They are men of exceptional experience, and their experience is entirely practical. The great point which has to be borne in mind by the borer, and which is of use to the authority afterwards in knowing the geological data, is the feel of the drill going down. I do not believe that a journal will be the best way in which the borer's experience can be put into the records of the survey. I believe it will be necessary for an inspector from the Ministry to inspect every important bore hole, and talk personally to the water borer, for in that way he will get a far clearer picture than the borer can give by writing down cold words in a journal. The next point is in regard to new water works. We all know that in many parts of the country dams, aqueducts and other


waterworks, including small pumping stations, can be an eyesore, whereas they could make a great improvement to the beauty of the valleys or areas in which they are situated. I hope that when any of these works are contemplated, the local planning authorities and others connected with town and country planning will be consulted and their advice given full weight.
I want to issue a warning on the subject of Clause 7. We are not short of water itself, but we are short of the facilities for bringing it to the people. That particularly applies to the country. This Clause holds out great hopes to the farming community in particular that they will have an unending and plentiful supply of water in the near future. I do not believe that that is a possibility for two reasons. The first is that we are now short of water for ordinary domestic purposes, and it will take a long time before we have adequate equipment and can make adequate arrangements for collection in order to fulfil all domestic requirements. It will therefore be a long time before we have sufficient equipment, pipes and so on, to make our farm fields, buildings and so on adequately supplied. Another point in regard to rural areas is drainage. We shall have a great deal of extra water flowing down the field dykes from the villages. In my own village, despite what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has said, we have already practically approved our post-war sewage and water schemes, anti I am content to wait for the end of the war with Germany to see that scheme started. I do not think the Minister has any reason to be ashamed of that necessary wait.
With the extra water which will be coming out of the villages, some thought should be given to the people who pay the drainage rates. At the present time they are those who own or occupy land or buildings eight feet above a certain water level. With the advent of this new and increased water supply, there will be a great deal more water to deal with, and the drainage rate should be spread over the entire rural population in the same way as the general rate.
The only point upon which I agree with the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden) is that there is an overlapping of authorities and of Ministries. I hope that this question will be reviewed,

because at the moment the Minister of Agriculture can be held responsible for the production of water, although, I admit, he has some great help from other sources. The Minister of Health deals with the collection, storage and distribution, and, to a certain degree, with purification. Then the Minister of Agriculture steps in and has to get rid of the water. It will be seen that on every occasion when the direction of the water is changed from its source through the human body or the machine, until it goes back to nature and into the sea, different Ministers are handing it over to other Ministers. Water is a most complex subject—in its origin, in its distribution and in its disposal—and I believe that the suggestion of one hon. Member that there should be a separate Parliamentary Secretary dealing with it in all its phases would commend itself to the House and would improve the efficiency of the organisation of water. The joint advisory committees are to cover a large number of aspects of water. We understand from Clause 15 that the recommendation of the White Paper on rivers boards has been accepted and rivers boards are to be set up. May I commend to my right hon. and learned Friend the suggestion that the Advisory Committee on Water set up under this Bill should conform closely to the area, and possibly even to the personnel, of the future rivers board? I commend my right hon. and learned Friend for having produced this Bill. Let me urge him to see that there is no delay in using the fresh powers, which I am certain the House will give him.

3.36 p.m.

Mr. Edgar Granville: I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major York) that an important aspect of this problem will be to deal with the question of the catchment boards and to sort out the difficulties of rating responsibility between what are called the uplands and the lowlands. This greatly affects the agricultural community, not only from the point of view of the disposal of water, but from that of the supply of water laid on to the actual farms. I join with him in hoping that, as a result of the various Debates we have had upon the question, we shall at last have the problem dealt with on a comprehensive basis. A great number of hon. Members have taken considerable interest in this problem, particularly my hon.


Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Levy), who has been a faithful plodder in favour of a national supply of water. The hon. Member for Bury (Mr. Chorlton), who is not here today owing to illness, has also taken a great interest in it and has made valuable contributions to the discussions in the House and with ideas submitted to the Minister. One hon. Gentleman referred to the question of training technicians and made a valuable suggestion when he said he thought it would be wise if some sort of information were given to the Forces of the requirements under the various schemes of amenities and social reform, so that they may begin some vocational training. In that way we could ensure having an adequate number of technicians available when the time comes to put the schemes into effect.
Everyone has emphasised that local authorities are unable to go ahead with their housing schemes unless they know what is in the Government's mind with regard to grants and assistance on piped water supply. I am sure that the Minister must have received a large number of resolutions and requests from local authorities asking for information as to what help they may expect from the Government before they plan their housing and post-war schemes. This is the second Bill we have had on water supply. We had one in 1944 attempting to deal with rural water supplies, and now we have this more general Measure. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) has delivered a considerable attack upon the Minister and the Government for failing to produce a more comprehensive scheme.
The Government must admit that the Bill, almost to the same extent as the previous Bill, has received a lukewarm reception. It may be that those who have read the Bill carefully are unable to comprehend exactly what it means in the process of co-ordination, but we certainly cannot be blamed for that. When introducing the Bill the right hon. and learned Gentleman made, I thought, an apologia for it rather than extolling its virtues. I hope that when the right hon. Lady replies she will answer some of the points which have been raised, so that hon. Members can get a clear idea of what the Bill really means.
I suppose this is also one of the largest Bills we have had to consider, but it

would need a great deal of scrutiny, in fact something like water divining, to find the immediate supplies of fresh water for the rural areas that are promised by the Bill. On almost every page occurs the word "may" in such phrases as "the Minister may" instead of administrative action. The result of all this is that we are to have more general committees and commissions and more advisory committees. We are going to pass more responsibility on to the local authorities for the initiation of schemes. I say that this country at the present time is getting rather badly littered with committees and commissions of one sort or another. You cannot get water supplies from committees or commissions. I prophesy that there will be trouble from local authorities. I imagine that some of them will go on strike soon if we go on "passing the buck" and transferring to them matters which should be within the responsibility and initiative of this House.
I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that this is not the Bill we hoped for. I ask the Government to withdraw it and to introduce a comprehensive Bill of planning which will enable them to co-ordinate the various services for rural amenities. The right hon. Lady must know, in her capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to tile Ministry of Health, that what we need in such rural areas as we have in Suffolk and East Anglia is revolutionary change in these matters if anything is going to be done. I made a maiden speech in this House 15 years ago asking for a supply of water to the rural areas. One Government after another have toyed with the problem, and no one has introduced legislation which would give me confidence that the people, who live in such awful conditions, are at last to have a reasonable water supply.
Many references have been made to the National Federation of Women's Institutes and the report which they have prepared, and many compliments have been paid to them on the detailed nature and the excellence of the report. I would refer only to the very last paragraph, in which a reference is made to a village in my constituency. It says:
Thorndon has 100 houses. There are only three pumps in the village, and nearly all the inhabitants have to fetch their water more than 200 feet. Most of them have earth closets, a few share closets. They would be willing to pay 6d. a week extra for main water


and 6d. a week extra for main drainage. Their only comment is terse and inequiyocal: 'Make haste, and get these into operation'.
Running through the report from beginning to end is this note of urgency. I gave the Minister a case of a village in my constituency quite recently, the village of Mendlesham, where as in scores and hundreds of similar parishes there is no water supply of any sort or kind for the schools; where at some public functions they have been forced to drink the drainings of the roof of the local public convenience and where the sewerage conditions are so bad that there is constant danger of pollution and epidemics in the schools. In the Bill, and in all the other Measures which ale Government have introduced to deal with the problem of rural reform, there is no hope that these conditions will be ended even within the lifetime of the members of the National Federation of Women's Institutes, who have taken such a great interest in the problem. It is the urgency of all this to which I would like the right hon. Lady to give her attention. These areas have been described as "darkest England" and "driest England"—the areas of flood and drought. I must agree with the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden), who has given such a great deal of time and study to the problem, and I cannot see that we shall really deal with this problem unless we plan and produce a national water system in this country.
We have discussed in this House what is to take place after the war in local government. The regional commissioners are going and much of the area organisation is to be dispensed with. I cannot see that these social questions will be dealt with, unless we have not only a national but an area plan such as the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) referred to, based upon geographical and geological considerations. It is not any good trying to patch up this serious shortcoming in our countryside. Therefore I reinforce the appeal which has been made to the Government and I say to them: If this is the last word we are to have with regard to water supplies, hundreds of thousands of people in the villages are likely still to be without decent water supplies. A suggestion was made to the right hon. Lady during the previous Debate, that it might be possible for the Government to take over the various systems of water supply at camps

and aerodromes, as well as sewage, electricity and other systems, because they are already installed and have ready-made roads. Under the system of pressure supply, good water might be fed from the camps to the villages. I believe that it is our best chance of getting an immediate supply in many parts of East Anglia.
I agree with the hon. Member who said that we need one Minister to be responsible for water supplies. It is true that on the back of the Bill appear the names of the Minister of Agriculture and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, but I firmly believe that matters like coast erosion, catchment hoards, supply and conservation of water should all be under one Minister. That should be obvious to anybody in this House. I hope that the Government will reconsider the problem also from that point of view. It is obviously quite possible to overcrowd the Statute Book with permissive legislation. We can carry all these Acts of Parliament but they do not supply a single gallon of water. We need administrative action and drive. We need proper planning of these schemes, with one Minister to take charge of them and to produce a national water system. I appeal to the right hon. Lady to tell us that these ideas are in the mind of the Government and that they will produce a comprehensive scheme in the near future.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), and the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) with a great deal of interest, but some confusion. They talked a great deal about this Bill being insufficient and being permissive, and about wanting a great national water scheme. But what do they mean by that? Do they mean that they want a grid system of water round the country? I know some hon. Members want it. If that is so, we shall not get water to the rural districts nearly so quickly as we shall under the very simple provisions of this Bill. I do not wish to weary the House but it is time we were reminded of what we are talking about, and may I read two short extracts from two Clauses of the Bill? Clause 28 states:
It shall be the duty of every local authority … to provide a supply of wholesome water in pipes to every part of their


district in which there are houses or schools. …
Clause 27 says:
… statutory water undertakers supplying water otherwise than in bulk shall give a supply of water on reasonable terms and conditions for purposes other than domestic purposes to the owner or occupier of any premises within their limits of supply who requests them …
Reading these two extracts my conclusion is that if the local authorities—I agree there may be decayed local authorities in Suffolk—are kept up to the scratch, and I think that Parliamentary representatives should help in that, and statutory undertakers do their job, we should get water in a reasonable time.
It is nonsense to talk, as did the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, about "Why do we not get these water supply schemes before the war with Germany ends?" He, and other Members of this House often forget that we are fighting a war, and that all materials and labour must be directed to smashing Germany. It is nonsense to say that we should make our effort against Germany less, in order that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, or the hon. Member for Eye, may get a little more water for one village.

Mr. Granville: It is surely the duty of the local authority to carry out this scheme, but what is to happen if the local authority does not carry it out? Where is there any national plan to compel them to take action?

Mr. Turton: In the old days, the duty was less extensive than it is to be now. We have improved the provisions under the Public Health Acts so that scattered houses can receive water. In the old days the obligation to supply water was only in a village where there was a school. As I read Clause 28, and I hope the right hon. Lady will correct me if I am wrong, this power is now being extended to include scattered houses. That is of great importance. We in this House cannot provide water, but we can order local authorities and statutory water undertakers to do so, and if they fail, we have to see that provision is made that their duties shall be enforced.
I did not however rise to talk generally on the Bill. I am afraid I was encouraged to do so by the speech of the hon. Member for Eye. I merely want to ask the right

hon. Lady one question on the compulsory acquisition of land for water purposes. May I congratulate the Minister and the right hon. Lady on this Bill? Unlike certain other Bills, it does provide that where land which is to be compulsorily acquired is common land, the State shall see that the rights of the commoners are decently protected. I am very happy to find that provision in this Bill, so soon after the Government made an error in that direction in another Bill, which I am not allowed to talk about to-day. I am a little unhappy about Clauses 23 and 24. It does appear that under these Clauses the undertakers may have power to acquire land compulsorily—not if it is common land, but land over which the public have a right of access, or especially which they are apt to use for recreational purposes—and there is no redress at all. There is a rather ominous passage in Clause 23 which says:
The provisions of Part I of the First Schedule to this Act, other than paragraph 8, shall apply to the making of applications and orders under this section.
That might sound all right to an innocent sort of person, but when one looks at paragraph 8, one finds that it is the only paragraph in the Schedule which gives Parliament the right to determine whether an objection is just or unjust. It is important that the right of Parliament in this matter of compulsory purchase should be secured. I will not argue to-day that the old method of the Private Bill Committee was the speediest or most economical way of settling these matters, but I do say that the ultimate arbiter in these questions of the compulsory acquisition of land must in some form be Parliament. I am backed up in that by the statement made by the Prime Minister on 20th June last year, in dealing with this very point of acquisition of land for water purposes. He there stated:
… the main object of the new system would be to secure that the question of national policy if challenged, should be determined on the floor of the House, and that subject thereto, the interests of private persons affected should be considered by a procedure corresponding to the procedure on a private Bill.
Orders made subject to such new procedure would, after any local inquiry or other preliminary proceeding required by the relevant statute, be laid before both houses of Parliament for a stated period, during which objection could be taken thereto either by negative resolution moved by a Member of the House or by petition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1944; Vol. 401, c. 34.]


As I read these Clauses—they are not too clear to the ordinary unskilled mind—they do mean that in certain cases statutory undertakers may be able to take large areas of land where there is no water, land which might be required for an extension of a waterworks, for enclosing another valley, say, in the Lake District, and the associations interested in the preservation of those amenities will have no right to object and no tribunal to which they can come to have their objection heard and determined. I hope the right hon. Lady will deal with that point. May I say, as I did in the beginning, that I think this Bill is an advance in water legislation? I think the Government are to be congratulated on bringing it forward, and I hope that when this Bill is law, local authorities and statutory undertakers will see that everybody in the country district get the water they deserve.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: I want to follow what has been said by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Mallon (Mr. Turton). We do not always agree. I think he would be rather horrified if we did. I do agree with him entirely in the point he has brought forward. But first I welcome this Bill in general, for I believe that the supply of water, especially to rural areas, is now second in importance only to the supply of houses. The Women's Institutes are not generally a revolutionary body, but they produced a revolutionary document. I welcome the Bill, but I think it would be a good thing if a Minister were placed in charge of this question of water supplies, because he would have to justify his existence by some activity, and the Bill is all right if it is pushed through with the utmost vigour. I think we need somebody who will do that.
The one point I wish to make, following on what the previous speaker said, is that it seems to me that far too little attention is paid in this Bill, as in some other Bills which have been before us recently, to the preservation of the natural beauties of this country, the preservation of our amenities. Here too little attention seems to me to be paid to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. We have this Ministry, and everybody seems to forget about it. One is afraid that a the end of the war there will be an un-

holy rush to provide the necessities that to far too many of the people of this country are still luxuries, and a tendency to put hideous houses and other eyesores in districts where they should not he, with the result that the natural beauties of those districts will be spoiled, perhaps for generations to come. If we are w protect those natural beauties it is essential that we should pay the utmost attention to them now, in any Bill that is passed while the war is on. I am glad that Clause 24 (4) gives power to statutory undertakers compulsorily to buy land. More of that is needed if these necessities are to be supplied to people with the greatest speed on the greatest possible scale. But, according to the Second Schedule, paragraphs 3 and 4, the only person who has the right to object to this compulsory power to buy the land is the owner of the land himself. I do not think that that is good enough.
I am lucky enough to have the greater part of Exmoor in my constituency. Reading the Bill, I am not sure that the greater part of Exmoor might not be bought for the purpose of providing water, without any care to national planning, without any thought that we want to preserve what is left of our countryside, to conserve its natural beauties and to develop national parks and so on. Clause 24 (6) talks about ancient monuments and objects of archaeological interest, but Exmoor is not an ancient monument or an object of archaeological interest. Subsection (7) of that same Clause says that if a compulsory purchase Order authorises the acquisition of commons, open spaces or allotments the Order shall be provisional only, and shall not have effect until confirmed by Parliament. That may be the way out—I do not know—but I hope the right hon. Lady, when she winds up the Debate, will make it very much clearer that the protection of the natural beauties of the country have been in the Government's mind while drafting this Bill. Such areas as Exmoor provide very valuable gathering areas for rainfall, and these things slip through Parliament in a very awkward way. I urge that there should be some provision for the Ministry of Town and Country Planning to be represented on the proposed Central Advisory Committee. On the Central Advisory Committee which was appointed in 1937 some of the Departments are represented. I notice that the White Paper on National


Water Policy mentions the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of War Transport, the Ministry of Health, and the Department of Scientific Research; in the new Committee shall we also have the Ministry of Town and Country Planning?
I beg the Government, very sincerely, to see whether, before this Bill becomes law, some paragraphs in it may not give us the necessary guarantee that the natural beauties of this country are not to be destroyed in this natural rush to get houses and water and all the rest supplied as soon as possible. Having said that, let me insist that nobody could be more alive than I am to the necessity of supplying water as quickly as possible to the rural areas. There are places in my constituency, as in a great number of other constituencies, where the position is absolutely disgraceful. But do not let us forget that Britain contains areas of the greatest beauty, and that we do not want to see them destroyed.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: In accordance with the custom which this House expects Members to follow, I desire to say, at the outset of my remarks, that I have a certain interest in a statutory water undertaking. Having said that, I think that I can say that the water undertakings, be they local authorities or be they statutory companies, are in general agreement with the principles of this Bill. There are certain matters which will call for consideration on the Committee stage. The constitution of the Central Water Advisory Committee and, I think, the constitutions of the joint water advisory committees are both matters to which further consideration will have to be given.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) complained that the Minister had recommended this Bill to the House as embodying the minimum of change. I thought that my hon. and learned Friend did less than justice to the Minister when he said that. I did not understand that to be what the Minister meant. I understood the Minister to say that this Bill did all these things which were necessary and essential for the improvement of the existing law of water supply. The Bill may also go beyond that, and give the Minister

power to do other things as well which may prove to be essential in the future.
I listened with particular interest, as I always do, to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden). I was glad to hear him say that it would have assisted in the consideration of this Bill if, at the same time, we had been able to see the Bill, to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred this morning, which will set up the proposed river boards, recommended by the Central Water Advisory Committee. I hope that when the right hon. Lady replies she will be able to give us some assurance that before we part with the present Bill we may be told what further provision is made in that Measure. My hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol complained that in matters of water policy there was what he described as divided responsibility. He said that the administration of water policy ought to be vested in a public commission. I am not such an admirer of public commissions as is my hon. Friend. Water policy is a matter of national importance, and I cannot agree with him that it ought to be separated from the administration of a Minister responsible and answerable to this House. But I am inclined to agree with some of his criticism about the division of responsibility. I have said before, on one or two previous occasion in this House that the Minister who, in my judgment, ought to be made responsible for water policy is not my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health, but the Minister of Town and Country Planning. After all, the Minister of Town and Country Planning is charged with the general planning of areas all over the country, and I should have thought that the planning of the water supplies of those places was an essential part of the task which he has to perform. However, I do not expect my right hon. and learned Friend to agree with that criticism, and I shall not be surprised if later on the right hon. Lady dissents from it.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol made some criticisms of the statutory water undertakings. Now I agree that there are, or ought to be, no party politics in a matter of this kind. It really does not matter whether the people who supply a district with water are a local authority, a public


statutory company or a private company, provided that they do the job well. Efficiency is, after all, the test of a public service of this nature.

Mr. A. Walkden: Will my hon. and learned Friend allow me? I hope he can appreciate the difference between a rather small private company, or any private concern, big or little, and a public statutory authority comparable with the London Passenger Transport Board. I do not want to detach it from any Ministry; it must be associated with some Ministry. Such an authority, national in character and backed by this House, could raise its money for improvement purposes—and that is what we want—on better terms than any small statutory company, like my Wisbech one, which is very small, and will have great difficulty in raising its money, and that is very important.

Mr. Hutchinson: I appreciated my hon. Friend's point and was just going to deal with it. In his speech, my hon. Friend made some comment upon the rates of interest upon which the statutory companies raised their capital. My hon. Friend said that, in earlier days, they were allowed to pay a return of 10 per cent. on their capital. He said that the rate has now been reduced. The common rate is, I believe, now 7 per cent. But my hon. Friend did not seem to be aware that these companies are required to raise their capital by tender or auction in the public market, and the reputation which they have established amongst investors is such that they are able to issue their capital at a substantial premium. It is a fact that the actual rate of interest which these companies are now paying on capital which has been raised in that way is very little more than 4 per cent.

Mr. A. Walkden: Surely my hon. and learned Friend is not forgetting that the L.C.C., which is a great public authority, gets its money at 3 per cent.

Mr. Hutchinson: We have narrowed the margin down now from 7 per cent. to 1 per cent., because my hon. Friend's point this morning was that they were raising it at 7 per cent. when it might have been raised at 3 per cent. Now, there is only i per cent. between us. Let me see if I can put the matter in a way that will satisfy my hon. Friend. These statutory companies, in return for the slightly higher

return which they are able to pay upon their capital, undertake a certain amount of risk. That is by no means an unreal thing. In recent years, we have seen that it may be very real indeed. There are towns in this country which have become partially de-populated by reason of the war, and where much of the loss which has been sustained on water undertakings has had to be made good by the shareholders of the statutory company. There are other portions of the country where, in the weather conditions experienced in recent summers, there has been a substantial loss on the sale of water. In those cases, the water undertaker has not had to increase his rates. The loss has fallen upon the shareholders of the company. Suppose that the water undertaking had raised its capital at the lowest possible market rate at which it could have been obtained, and that it had suddenly encountered a situation of that nature, due to the consequences of war or to an exceptionally dry summer or something of that kind. The only course left to the water undertaking would be to raise its rates to the consumers. It may not be a very wise thing that we should expect that these undertakers should raise their capital at such a low rate of interest that they would be unable to enjoy that flexible margin which they can get under the present arrangements.
Let me come now to the question of amalgamations. One or two hon. Members have spoken of amalgamation as if a mere amalgamation of undertakings was going to bring about an improvement in the water supply. I would say to those hon. Members that, where you amalgamate two or more water undertakings, the lay-out of the mains and the technical apparatus of those undertakings necessarily remains the same. Because you amalgamate the undertakings you do not pull up the existing mains and put down a new series of mains and pumping stations. Amalgamation, by itself, is not going to improve the supply of water within any limits of supply. What is wanted is not necessarily that the undertakings should, be amalgamated, but that they should be able—and if they will not do it, they should be compelled—to exchange supplies of water in bulk with one another. It sometimes happens that you may get an undertaking which has to supply a very large population for which it possesses limited resources, while an


adjoining undertaking has abundant resources but a limited population. You are not going to improve the conditions in either of those areas by the amalgamation of the undertakings; but you are going to improve them if the undertaking which possesses abundant resources can, without difficulty, be compelled to supply water in bulk to the undertaking whose supplies are limited.

Mr. Levy: My hon. and learned Friend is a little inconsistent. He shows where there is no improvement and where there is improvement and then contradicts himself, failing to realise that, by unification and amalgamation, you get one administrative unification of the area, where interchange of bulk supplies will be automatic.

Mr. Hutchinson: If my hon. Friend had a little patience, he would have seen that I was going to deal with that. I was going to say that you can, by an exchange of bulk supplies, which this Bill aims at bringing about, achieve that unification in those areas at present short of supplies, which will be just as effective as if the undertakings were amalgamated. My hon. Friend said that amalgamation will result in administrative economies. He has more faith in amalgamations than I have from that point of view. I have seen a good many amalgamations, and I have yet to see one result in administrative economies.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery made a very dramatic speech upon a Bill which, as the Minister said, is not of a very dramatic nature. I listened to the description which he gave of the conditions in many rural places in Wales and in England. It was a description with which the House, generally, will agree. But one must not overstate the position in the rural areas. It is the case that only 5 per cent. of the total population are not at present in possession of a piped supply of water, I understood—

Mr. De Chair: Will my hon. and learned Friend allow me to remind him that, although only 5 per cent. of the total population of England and Wales are without a piped water supply, 30 per cent. of rural houses are without a piped supply?

Mr. Hutchinson: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. All I am saying is that in

order to get a true picture one must not overstate the case. I listened with particular interest to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend and I waited for him to come to that part of his speech in which I expected him to describe what he would regard as a national water policy. I do not think that he ever came to it. I understood him to say that the reason why the local authorities had failed to discharge the duty which had been placed upon them long ago was because they were not possessed of the necessary financial resources. That may be the case. If my hon. and learned Friend looks at this Bill, and at this Bill alone, he may not find a complete solution of the problems which he stated to the House. But that is not the right way to estimate the national water policy. My right and hon. learned Friend made no mention of the re-arrangement of local authorities which may result from the Minister's policy for dealing with the reform of local government. He made no mention of the fact that at present conversations are proceeding between the Treasury and local authorities with a view to a financial re-adjustment. Those are all matters which have a bearing upon a national water policy.
If you look to this Bill and not beyond this Bill, you may not find in this Bill alone all the elements of the national water policy for which my hon. and learned Friend has asked. But that is not a fair way to judge the matter. You have to look at the policy of the Government as a whole. In conclusion, I would like to support the suggestion that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) that this Bill might be referred to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses. It is a Bill which must necessarily take a little time on the Committee stage and it is equally a Bill which both sides of the House are agreed ought to be passed into law as quickly as possible. Therefore, I commend the suggestion to my right hon. and learned Friend. Subject to those matters to which I have referred, this Bill marks a substantial advance in the codification and simplification of a difficult, involved but highly important branch of our law.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. McEntee: If I were asked for a short description of this Bill I would say that it is a useful


Bill but not useful enough. It has a lot of shortcomings, but I do not suppose that anyone who desires an improvement in the present system would insist on voting against it. It will undoubtedly improve the position, but there are a lot of other things which ought to be in the Bill. It cannot be called a national Bill in any real sense of the word, and greater consideration ought to have been given to what has been described as a national policy. We say that in the future we are to have very great improvements in housing, that the population is to be spread out and that congested areas are to be made less congested by the removal of population, including some of the business population. New towns are to be set up. Places like London will have to spread out. There will be a green belt round London and outside the green belt new towns will grow up. The average business man, if he were considering removing his business from a congested area, would ask what were the prospects of an ample water supply, an ample supply of electricity and an ample sewerage system. These things are closely related and I could not approve of a scheme that did not relate them one to the other. Any scheme which could really be called national ought to provide for all the people all over the country the prime necessities of light and power, sewerage, and water. The Bill cannot be called a national Bill unless it deals with the necessary amenities for every member of the public. That would be my general criticism of the Bill.
The Bill itself provides that the Minister shall have certain responsibilities but, in taking those responsibilities, he passes on a great deal of the responsibility to local authorities. While he covers himself adequately and amply with regard to the financial side of his Ministry, he is not so concerned about the local authorities. To impose a duty on a local authority with regard to the supply of water, knowing that the authority is not in a financial position to meet its responsibility, is not fair. To that extent I agree entirely with what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). There are many local authorities on whom the Minister may try to impose a duty which they are entirely unable to accept because of their financial position. The Minister may say: "We will come to

your aid," but, frankly, all my experience of public life—and it has been a fairly long one—has shown that when the Minister comes to your aid he always comes to your aid in parts.
The parts which are left to be met by the local authority are so numerous that it is becoming impossible for local authorities to stand the strain. I think most local authorities to-day have reached the limit of what they can stand in regard to putting any extra on their rates. A national water supply ought to be considered as a national necessity, just as the Army and the Navy are considered to be national necessities, and I must add the Air Force. A national water supply ought to be paid for by the people, broadly, over the whole country. After all, those who need water most are the poorer people with large families who are least able to provide for their own necessities, and they ought to be assured that they will not have to pay equally, let us say, with people like myself with no family and therefore having less to pay in meeting their responsibilities.
Another criticism I would level at the Bill is this: I believe it was the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), and, I think, also the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. G. Hutchinson), who pointed out that the Bill is right in leaving all these smaller authorities just as they are. They can, of course, if they desire, come together and negotiate arrangements by which they will amalgamate, but there is no compulsion.

Mr. G. Hutchinson: I did not say the Bill was right in leaving them just as they are. I said the Bill enabled the Minister to make arrangements between them which might be more effective than a complete amalgamation of the smaller undertakings would have been.

Mr. McEntee: Yes, but the arrangements are entirely voluntary and can only be made if they are willing. The Metropolitan Water Board, of which I have not been a member for a great number of years, showed me when I was a member that it is an exceedingly efficient body indeed. It is democratic. Every member of it has been elected by the area he represents, and if he ceases to be a member of his local authority he ceases to be a member of the Board. Because that is


a good democratic arrangement, the Board body. However, within the area of the is a good, democratic, and very efficient Metropolitan Water Board itself are smaller water undertakers with powers and responsibilities and some of these are unable to meet their responsibilities. They come to the Metropolitan Water Board and ask the Board to sell to them some of the water which it has collected. I am not complaining about that, but why, if bodies are inefficient, should they remain in existence in the area of the Metropolitan Water Board or in other areas? Although I used the word "inefficient," it is perhaps not the best word to use. Such undertakers are set in circumstances for which they are not responsible, but because of them are unable to carry out their undertakings.
Therefore I think the time has come when the Minister should do something about these undertakers. He might say, as a predecessor of his in another Ministry in a previous Government said: "London transport has been in such a muddle for a long time that the time has arrived when something must be done to make it more efficient and work more smoothly and more in the interest of the public of London generally." The consequence was the London Passenger Transport Board. I could criticise the London Passenger Transport Board in many ways but it has given us an infinitely better transport service than we had in its area previously. So I say to the Minister that I am sorry he has been so timid, that he is not willing to do for water what a previous Minister did for transport, and say that the time has arrived—and undoubtedly it has arrived—when many of the local authorities and many of the private undertakings dealing in water, not only in London but in the country generally—have, because of circumstances they cannot control in many respects, become inefficient and unable to carry out their duty.
I hope the Minister will do something more than give us this Bill. I hope he will set up some kind of real body with power to plan the country, to survey, and to give us some kind of system that will include sewerage and water, and, for myself, I would say electricity also. At any rate, sewerage and water are so closely linked together that I think any Bill dealing with one should deal with both.

After all there is no use in telling a person "You must do this" if he has not the power to do it, and there is no use in telling a local authority to do this thing if the Minister knows beforehand—and he knows it perfectly well—that many of these local authorities are quite powerless to do it because of their financial position. If he is still Minister—and I hope he will be, because he is not a bad Minister—20, 25 or even 50 years from now, we shall find him still talking about this business of water and still saying that the local authorities should have done this and that; but they will not have done it because they have not the power to do it, as he knows. Some of these local undertakings pay, some do not; some will pay in the future, some will not; and the country will have to pay where they lose.
I commenced by saying the Bill was a useful one and I end by saying so. But it is not useful enough, and I hope that the Minister—who has a mind quite big enough to do it—will get down to it and take a few nights off somewhere and think the problem out on a much bigger scale than anything contemplated by this Bill. It is small and niggardly in some regards, large and visionary in others. I hope he will look at the parts that are small and niggardly and bring us something during his tenure of office that will be large and visionary and cover the real needs of the country both in regard to water and sewerage.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. De Chair: I join other speakers in welcoming the Second Reading of this Bill and in congratulating the Minister on bringing it forward. I am unable to share the point of view of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville), who take the point of view that they should castigate the Minister for producing the remedy for a situation which has long been deplorable—as if he were, in fact, to blame for the continued neglect of our water supplies in the past. I should have regarded it as a disgrace if this House of Commons, which was elected in 1935, nearly nine years ago, had reached the end of its life without having dealt in a comprehensive fashion with this question of water supplies, and particularly with the water supplies in the rural areas. I do not believe those in the cities yet realise


the deplorable conditions that exist in the rural districts as a result of the lack of a proper piped water supply.
We understand from the White Paper on Water Supplies that the Government intend to spend £15,000,000 on new water supplies and, of course, that figure is actually provided for in the Rural Water Supplies Act of last year. I would like to ask the right hon. Lady who is to reply to the Debate whether or not the Ministry yet have returns from rural districts to indicate whether they are ready to go ahead with their schemes the moment the war with Germany is over. The Minister, in an interjection during the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, pointed out that the legislation provided for in the 1944 Act would not take effect until the end of the war with Germany, and we all understand that limitation. But the corollary should be that the Ministry should have all, their plans prepared, or should make sure that the rural districts have all their plans prepared, so that they have only to press the button and these new schemes will come into operation at once.
It is essential to reduce these matters of legislation to a practical time-table. We had Debates year after year before the war deploring the condition of water supplies in this country, and we have had to wait for a war before legislation could be introduced which would cope with that situation adequately. Owing to the war we cannot do anything until it is over. One feels rather like a desert traveller, who, extremely thirsty when crossing the desert, sees the mirage of a wonderful fountain spray in the distance which, at nearer approach, continually recedes. We hope that in the legislation now before the House we are actually getting towards reality, and that after the war with Germany we shall, during the latter part of this year, or next year, see the implementation of the promise contained in this legislation.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: I also do not think it is wise to castigate the Minister of Health. What we ought to do is to look back on the legislation that is on the Statute Book and see whether part of the blame, if not all, does not rest on the local authorities for not carrying out the work they ought to have carried out. By and large we have a fairly regular

water supply in the form of rainfall, yet in some parts of the country, in some seasons of the year, it is as dry as the Sahara, while at other periods of the year one is reminded of the story of Noah's Ark and the Flood. Surely the intelligence of our people has not fallen so low that we cannot take this abundant supply which nature gives us and collect it, store it, and distribute it in a far better way than we have done before. We know that great difficulties have arisen owing to the increased use of water during the last few years. Time was when it was very rare to find a bath in a house. Those days have gone, or are going fast. Also, in those far off days sanitation was not carried out by the water carriage system. Further, industries are now using more and more water. The object of this Bill is to get over some of those difficulties. The Minister is carrying on where his predecessor left off and is to appoint, or may appoint, joint Advisory Water Committees. I ask him to be very careful about selection of the areas represented by these Committees, because on that selection will depend the help they will be able to give him in the carrying out of what is called a national policy. Each joint area, served by a joint committee, out to have a sufficient supply for the whole of its area, so that a combination of the areas would make for a national policy.
There are one or two points of criticism I want to make, although I have no wish to condemn the Bill. On the Minister rests, as is stated in Part I of the Memorandum,
… the specific duty of promoting in England and Wales the provision of adequate water supplies, the conservation of water resources and the effective execution by water undertakers, under his control and direction, of a national water policy.
That is a very big job indeed, and he cannot do it by himself. If he gets these joint Advisory Committees formulated on a sound basis, and used as an aggregate, he will be able to shoulder his heavy task. Clause 28 of the Bill lays it down that it is the duty of every local authority to do certain work
to take from time to time such steps as may be necessary for ascertaining the sufficiency and wholesomeness of water supplies.
I take it that that is not permissive, but that it is an absolute duty on them to do this. They have


to provide a supply of wholesome water in pipes to every part of their district in which there are houses or schools … at a reasonable cost.
Where they cannot do it at a reasonable cost it is still obligatory upon them to find a supply of water other than in pipes, always remembering that it must be at a reasonable cost.
The question of finance has been raised. One of the obstacles to the progress of the work envisaged in this Bill will be the cost. If some local authorities were to carry out all that has to be done, and pay for it themselves, they would be submerged in debt. Clause 30 seems to amplify what Clause 28 states, except that we pass from "shall" to "may." Here again it would have been better if it had been obligatory on local authorities to serve notice on the owners that the houses should have a wholesome and sufficient supply of water.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) said that only 5 per cent. had a water supply. To talk about it in percentages is a trite way of covering matters up. Five per cent. does not sound much but it means over 2,000,000 persons, who are citizens of the country and deserve something much better. The rural areas have been steadily neglected. It is a most remarkable thing that the supplies of water come from the rural areas. There are innumerable villages and hamlets in the dales where I live. There is a great dam at the head of the valley and from that huge reservoir there run pipes, which must be 15 inches in diameter, passing through the villages to the towns and the congested industrial areas; yet in those villages the people have to walk quite respectable distances to get water from a well or stream. A previous speaker asked for an assurance that something should be done to tap this water, because, if it belongs to anyone, it belongs to the villages.
Under Clause 28 I take it that a local authority may serve notice on the owner of houses outside the reach of an ordinary water supply, where the distance and the cost are too great. In my district there are isolated houses like that. The less said about the water supply the better. Not long ago there was a case of typhus which was traced to the water. Does the Clause mean that a local authority can

serve notice on an owner so that an isolated house shall have an adequate and wholesome supply? I hope it does. There are scores of places where they are using polluted water. They have no other. The people who live in those houses are the yeomen of England. They have been the backbone of the country for centuries, and they deserve something better. If I can get an assurance on that point alone, although the Bill is not satisfactory to everyone, I think something creditable will have been done.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I am not very familiar with this problem of water supply, but I think there is one hon. Member above all who ought to be congratulated on the Bill and that is the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy), who has been talking water in this House for years. I suppose he has been drinking it too. Quite seriously, I think this is a very necessary Measure. It carries us a good way forward, but what is to be done to implement its provisions will depend in the end on the enthusiasm and spirit of the Minister in charge for the time being. It will most certainly give the Minister power to do a great deal for the people in providing them with a wholesome water supply. I do not know much either about the technical problems connected with water, but I realise that a great deal of planning will have to be done before you start any construction at all. I am wondering whether the Minister will send word urging local authorities to proceed with plans on the lines which have already been suggested to him. That is the very first thing to be done when the Bill becomes law.
Let me give a case in point. Twelve months ago or more one of the largest municipal corporations in the country dismissed nearly the whole of their civil engineering staff simply because they said they could not proceed on a long-term policy until they knew the Government's policy on housing and the location of industry. It seems to me, therefore, that the Minister would do the greatest service of all in urging local authorities, as soon as the Bill passes, to employ competent persons to plan and be ready to construct when the war ends. I am not sure that in some cases it may not take two or three years to get the plans out. It may need tunnels 15 or 20 miles long to bring


water down to the urban population from a given area in the countryside. Some are complaining that local authorities have not the money to proceed with this work, but the large authority I have mentioned has plenty of money. It was not money that failed them; what failed them was spirit—the spirit of adventure. I am not therefore as critical of the Ministry of Health with regard to water supply as I am of some local authorities. Then, there are cases where a pipe line comes down say, 100 miles from a lake district to places like Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham, and there are small local authorities right on the route which will have their own water undertakings when they could be supplied direct from the pipe of the larger undertaking. I do not know how far this Bill deals with a problem like that. The most astonishing thing that I have come across is the case of villages, with their own nice little lakes near by, which have not enough adventure to lay down pipes to bring the water to their houses.

Mr. Quibell: Particularly in North Wales.

Mr. Davies: North Wales is not peculiar in that respect. I have seen places in England like that too. I have also seen the case where they have been induced to bring the water down from the lake to the village, and they put all the taps outside instead of inside the houses. There has been a great deal of criticism of the Ministry of Health about water supplies, but in my experience of public life I believe that the local authorities must be enthused; ought to be induced by the intervention of the Minister to do some of the things which this Bill calls upon them to do. A clean water supply in the houses of the people is after all the greatest asset for health; it is the health of the nation that counts in the end, and from that angle I also welcome this Bill.

5.1 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): After those few remarks from the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), in which he urged that we should put spirit as well as water into the local authorities, I would like to assure him that some of the points he has mentioned are already dealt with. I would like to

give the same assurance to the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Sexton), who also mentioned the subject of pipes going through small villages, and asked whether there was power to tap them. The hon. Member for Westhoughton mentioned cases where there was a local water supply which was not being used. In many cases it is better that the local supply should be used, but if the hon. Members, and the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards), who asked a similar question, will study Clause 12, they will sec that there is the power for which they are asking with regard to bulk supplies. As to whether the local authorities can plan, I would remind hon. Members who raised the point that the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act was passed in cutter that the local authorities in rural areas might begin to make their plans. The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. De Chair) asked a question about this. We realise the difficulties arising through shortage of staff, but plans are being made, local inquiries are being held, and preparations are going on, although during the war the actual work cannot be begun.

Mr. De Chair: The point I want cleared up is whether the right hon. Lady can give any information as to the stage that these preparations have reached. In my constituency, for instance, I know that one local authority is far advanced with its plans, and we would like to know whether all of them are.

Miss Horsbrugh: That may be a point of interest to the hon. Member, but it has nothing to do with this Bill. I gave the importance of preparations as an example and only just mentioned that Act, but I would be out of Order in going into further details. Hon. Members have said that they welcome the Bill and that it is a useful Measure. Some have said that they would like it to be more useful, and have made suggestions on how that should be effected. As I was taking notes of what hon. Members have suggested I was interested to find that in nine cases out of ten their suggestions were already contained in the Bill. So that, having welcomed the Bill, even though they thought their suggestions were not covered by it, I am sure that they will be even more pleased when they come to study. the Bill and find that a great many of the suggestions are already in it. Many


of the points that have been raised are Committee points. Those who have read the Bill realise that it is the type of Bill on which, in the Committee stage, we shall have to get down to a great deal of detail. Hon. Members have said that they would like it strengthened. Let us, when we come to deal with it Clause by Clause in Committee, see how it can be strengthened. I am certain that a lot of the work on it must be detailed work, and I am sure that hon. Members will agree that what we want to do to-day on the Second Reading is to deal with the wider aspects of the Measure.
The hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden) surprised me a little at the time when he spoke of desiring more of a national scheme. I was prepared for that suggestion, but he surprised me when he went on to say that it would be better to have some commission, because Ministers come and go—as I know, having served under four—and there would be no continuity. He thought that civil servants were not the right sort of people to ensure continuity, and that what we needed was a commission outside Parliament and the Minister. I noticed that he supported the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy). The hon. Member, who has received the congratulations of the House, in which I would like to join, on at last seeing a Water Bill brought forward, wanted more money from the Treasury. It is rather a strange proposition to ask for more money from the Treasury for a commission which was not to be guided in any way by the Minister or by the Civil Service. I hardly think that that is the official policy of the Labour Party, unless it has changed very greatly.

Mr. Kirkwood: The right hon. Lady must not say that.

Miss Horsbrugh: If the hon. Gentleman will read the speech of the hon. Member for South Bristol, he will find that he made it clear that he wanted a commission to ensure continuity because Ministers come and go, and he did not want the policy to be tied up with the Minister. I think that what we want to see is a Minister responsible for policy to this House, so that the criticism and the control of the whole scheme can remain with this House.

Mr. Kirkwood: I interjected because the right hon. Lady said that what the hon. Member for South Bristol said was the policy of the Labour Party. It is not.

Miss Horsbrugh: I thought I made it clear that I do not think it is the policy of the Labour Party. Thus, my hon. Friend and I are in agreement. The hon. Member for South Bristol thought that the Minister had not sufficient powers and said that there was too much to be done by agreement. He wanted to see more compulsory powers given to the Minister. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to look again at the Bill. Even in the index of the Clauses, one finds over and over again the words "by agreement or compulsorily." I cite as examples Clauses 9, 10, 12 and 24. When hon. Members have time to study the Bill more carefully they will find that the Minister is taking a tremendous amount of power—very sweeping powers. When my right hon. Friend was speaking, some hon. Members thought that when he said the powers he was taking were the minimum required, he was taking small powers. When they look at what he said, they will find that the point he was making was that the powers which are being taken in this Bill are very sweeping and considerable. Some people would almost call them, in sore cases, startling powers. At the same time, he pointed out that they were necessary powers—very great powers, but absolutely necessary for the work that has to be done.
The hon. Member for South Bristol spoke about the rate of interest charged, and he said that money could be obtained for a lower rate of interest. After victory, he said, there would be tremendous stability, and it would be quite easy to obtain capital at a very low charge. Well, perhaps there will be stability, and each one of us has his or her point of view as to what will make for stability. I do not want to be in the least controversial, so I will leave the point by saying that I hope there will be stability and that capital will be available for these enterprises. The hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) replied to the point made by the hon. Member for South Bristol. Perhaps I might emphasise again the points which he made on the subject of this interest.
The original maximum rate of dividend which the statutory water companies


were entitled to pay was 10 per cent. That was laid down in the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847. Later, the maximum rate of dividend, as prescribed in water companies' Special Acts was fixed at a lower level, and for the last 50 years or so the rate has been round about 7 per cent. Now the hon. Gentleman says that 7 per cent. is too high, but, as the hon. and learned Member for Ilford pointed out, since 1887 a Standing Order of the House of Commons has required that whatever the rate of dividend prescribed in the Special Acts, any water company authorised to raise additional capital must offer such capital by public auction or tender. The effect of this is that the nominal rate of dividend is not really of great significance, since the full market price is obtained. For example, if £100 of stock is offered at 7 per cent., the purchase price would be governed by the current rate of interest on similar classes of security. If the current rate of interest was 5 per cent., the £100 worth of stock would be sold for £140.
It is not the same arrangement as is made in the ordinary way, because the Act to which I have referred lays it down that capital must be offered by public auction or tender. The hon. and learned Member for Ilford said he thought it would work out at about 4 per cent, instead of a nominal 7 per cent. As hon. Members know, the rate of interest mentioned in the Bill is 6 per cent. The hon. Member for Elland welcomed the Bill and congratulated both the Minister of Health and myself on this Water Bill having at last been produced to the House and the country generally. Hon. Members have had their opportunity, and now I have mine, of congratulating the hon. Member for Elland on the work that he has done in the last 14 years. He was able to say that he was very glad to see some result of his efforts.
The main point that he put was that he thought the machinery, or our suggestion for the machinery to be set up, was good but he was uncertain whether the machinery would work. I got the idea, as I was listening to him, of the owner of a motor car, who was not quite sure whether he could get sufficient petrol to put into it to get it going. He said he could not see how the scheme would work without more financial assistance from the Treasury and he pointed out that there

might be small undertakings that had to do more work and would be unable to do it, and that could not raise capital. He said it was no use having merely default powers because the small undertakings were not able to do the work that was required of them. But of course before it came to the point of going through the default procedure it would have to be considered whether these undertakings would have either to be amalgamated with others or cease to exist and allow others to take on the work. We were asked questions on the same subject by several hon. Members, and I think by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle and the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee). They said that the amalgamations were only voluntary. If the hon. Member for West Walthamstow will look at the Bill he will find that the amalgamations can be compulsory. The Minister has power to make compulsory amalgamations. It is not a case of leaving it now simply to a voluntary arrangement. The hon. Member feared that situation, but I can set his fears at rest at once. The hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson) has fears also, which can be set at rest in the same way. If he will examine the Bill he will see that the Minister has power to deal with small undertakings who cannot do the job.

Mr. Sexton: Does it not all depend upon the Minister? If he cares to exercise the powers all well and good.

Miss Horsbrugh: Surely that would be true of any Minister and any Government. It is up to the House of Commons to criticise a Minister if he is not doing his job well.

Mr. McEntee: The amalgamation of a lot of bankrupt undertakings will not make for more stability. A number of these undertakings are very poor and may be unable to meet their responsibilities under the Bill. Amalgamation will not help. What they will require is a large Treasury grant.

Miss Horsbrugh: I do not think a large Treasury grant will be the cure. You have to have an efficient undertaking. Simply to give an inefficient one more money will not help. There may have to be amalgamation or transfer to another authority.

Mr. H. Lawson: Will it be possible, under Clause 8, for the supply side of undertakings to be amalgamated and still


to leave the distribution in the hands of the local authority?

Miss Horsbrugh: I do not think I like that idea, on first thought. The hon. Member can raise it if he likes in the Committee stage, but as he puts it at the moment I do not fancy it at all because I do not think it would be an efficient arrangement. If the hon. Member looks at Clause 9 (1, b) of the Bill he will see the words:
all or any of their functions relating to the supply of water.
As he puts the idea—perhaps I have not understood it quite clearly—I do not think it sounds as if it would be an efficient scheme. In all probability, these matters can be gone into during the Committee stage and we can see whether the hon. Gentleman's suggestion can be accepted and words expanded in any particular way.
The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) spoke of the necessity for the Minister having powers to compel amalgamation or transfer. He thought perhaps there would not be enough backbone in the Bill, and he was willing to help us to supply it in the Committee stage. Perhaps he will find there are more bones in it than he thought if he reads some of the other Clauses. He also inquired whether the Central Advisory Committee would make an annual report to Parliament. What has happened with the Milne Committee's Report is that reports have been made when they have finished particular sections of their work. It is clear that the Advisory Committee could make a report but I would not necessarily say an annual report because I think it would have to fit in with their work. At the same time, the Minister will make an annual report, the Annual Report of his Department. In some cases, as in years gone by, I am told, when there was a particular amount to be dealt with on water, that part could be printed separately and would deal entirely with the work done under the schemes for water.
The hon. Member for Holland with Boston also spoke on the subject of waste. He said that he was unable to find the word "waste" defined in Clause 14. He thought there might be a great deal of waste and one example he gave was of water being used to grow watercress.

Watercress is a very useful food, and if the hon. Gentleman were asked to define waste in a Bill I think he would try to find some better definition than saying that it was water used for growing watercress. I agree with him that we desire to see that water is not wasted, and if he will look at Clause 14 of the Bill, he will see that it would be for the Court to decide what is waste. It is perhaps better to leave it at that than to try to put a definition into the Bill as to what we consider to be waste. The hon. Member for Wrexham asked about bulk supplies. As I have already stated, he will find the answer in Clause 12. The hon. Member for Heywood and Radcliffe (Mr. Wootton-Davies) asked about one point which perhaps does not come immediately within the Bill, the effect on lead pipes of the chlorination of water. He asked whether anything was being done about that. The Water Pollution Research Board deals with that, and we know that in some cases lead pipes are not allowed in particular areas. He also said that we only seem to be restricting wells of more than 50 feet depth, and this surprised me, because if he will look at Clause 7—

Mr. Wootton-Davies: Less than 50 feet.

Miss Horsbrugh: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. The hon. Member perhaps had not noticed Clause 14 as well as Clause 7. The latter Clause deals with wells of more than 50 feet depth. In these cases we have to have information. The hon. Member will find wells as a whole dealt with in Clause 14. Again, I hope I can put his fears at rest.
The hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison), who always speaks with knowledge and interest on these subjects, gave us a good deal of encouragement. He also welcomed the Bill. He mentioned several points such as the disused wells, the importance of the Geological Survey, the representation on the Advisory Committee. All these points we are bearing in mind. He also asked whether hon. Members would be able to see the Rivers Board Bill before we concluded the Committee stage of this Bill. I will certainly see what can be done to have that Bill published. He said he would like to see a Minister for Water, but that that would be rather too much, as we already had too many Ministers. I thoroughly agree with him. He suggested there might be two Under-Secretaries at


the Ministry of Health. He will not ask me to agree with him wholeheartedly in that. I feel that the idea that there must be a Minister, even a junior Minister for every section of the work, is not the best way of dealing with our work. I feel that in our Departments there should be separate sections dealing with each particular problem, and that the Minister, with the Under-Secretary or Under-Secretaries, should then be able to see that the policy is carried out, give information to the House and supervise that work. The suggestion has been made over and over again that each different problem should have a different Minister. What would then be required would be a mass of co-ordinating committees to bring together what had been split up at an earlier stage.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: I hope the right hon. Lady will pass on that suggestion to the Prime Minister, and ask whether it is necessary to have an Under-Secretary to deal with petrol and oil. There is a great deal more water used than petrol and oil.

Miss Horsbrugh: I will take note of what the hon. Member has said.
The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) asked whether it would not be possible to count for grant the connection of the pipes in the house to the main. That again we will look into in connection with the Act he mentioned.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Is there no answer to the question I asked, about whether it would be possible to have this Bill referred to a Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons instead of the ordinary Committee, for greater convenience?

Miss Horsbrugh: I intended to deal with that point later. It was one which the hon. and learned Member for Ilford also raised. As the hon. Member has referred to it, I will deal with it now. I think there is a difference on this occasion from the other occasion in 1939, when the Water Undertakings Bill went to a committee of the kind the hon. Gentleman has indicated. We feel that this would not be the occasion for such a course. This Bill is not merely one dealing with technical points. It is really a Bill which deals with policy, in which a great deal of power is being given to the Minister. It makes a good deal of

change in connection with local undertakings, local authorities and the powers of Ministers, and I think that if the hon. Gentleman looks at it in that way, he will agree that this is a Bill which should be considered by a committee of this House in the ordinary way in which ordinary Bills are considered. It is not simply a technical Bill dealing entirely with technical points.
Then the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) both put forward their anxieties as to whether powers were being taken, in Clauses 23 and 24, for the acquisition of land, under which there would not be sufficient rights of objection, except for the owner of the land, or sufficient control by Parliament. First, as to the rights of people to object. Paragraph 3 (a) of the Second Schedule on page 60—the paragraph dealing with publicity—is designed to give the opportunity for objections to be raised. It would be meaningless if the Minister were to pay no attention to those objections. The idea is that there should be publicity and that therefore objections could be raised, and the Minister could hold a local inquiry to consider those objections.
I think the hon. Gentleman had in mind that large gathering grounds might be bought, without people getting a chance to make any objection. If it were to be done on a very wide scale, I am quite sure that it would involve the acquisition of water rights under Clause 26 (2). If it were only a small area of land connected with a new catchwater or with a protection of a well I do not think this would be the sort of area in which the hon. Gentleman would be interested. There would be publicity through the agency of the local inquiry, and I think in that way the people would have the chance to object. I think it will be seen that in this scheme we have done our best to meet that point. As to control by Parliament, the powers are exactly the same as the procedure for the Public Health Act water undertakers and the same as for the purpose of housing, hospitals, playing fields, etc.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Some of us will still not be quite satisfied unless we feel that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning—

Miss Horsbrugh: I was coming to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning next.

Mr. Turton: I think I must point out that the scheme is not the same for housing, hospitals, etc., and that it is different from the Water Undertakings Bill of 1943 introduced two years ago.

Miss Horsbrugh: There are also other differences. These, I think, we could go into in the Committee stage.
The Bill does not alter the provision as regards planning control. It makes no alteration whatever. All this is still under the Planning Acts, and there will be co-operation between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. The hon. Member for Bridgwater spoke about the Milne Committee, but the Ministry of Town and Country Planning did not exist when that Committee was deliberating.

Mr. Bartlett: But that does not affect the position. What I was asking was—

Miss Horsbrugh: What the. hon. Gentleman was doing was to make quite sure that we knew that a Ministry of Town and Country Planning existed. I think I have dealt with most of the points raised by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford who spoke of the value of the interchange of bulk supplies and on the subject of the dividend on capital. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) did not like the Bill and he made that quite clear. He told us of the misery of people who were without piped water supply and of the difficulties and hardships that these people were suffering. I would assure the hon. and learned Member that it is because we know of these hardships that the Bill has been introduced. It is to set up machinery to deal with these particular difficulties. I do not believe that there is any use in overlooking what has been done in the past. Of course, we all wish that it could have been done more quickly. We all wish that it were not a case of only 95 per cent. of the people having piped water supply, because we should like to see 100 per cent. It is as we get nearer to the 100 per cent. that we come upon the worst difficulties and it is because we realise that there are these difficulties that the Rural Water Supply and Sewerage Measure and, above all, this Bill have been introduced.
What we are hoping to do by this Bill is to deal with the very difficulty that the hon. and learned Member desires should receive attention, by setting up the necessary machinery. We all, as well as he, wish to deal with it. He does not think that the Bill will do it, and he does not think that there is enough power. What he and other hon. Members say is, "We want a national policy." Well, if he has read Clause 1, in which he sees the new powers, why is it that he is so completely pessimistic? I only hope that he will be able, one day, to come to this House and say that he has found that he is wrong and that the machinery is working well. I know that he will do it.
The hon. Member for Elland, like the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, has had his doubts, but even he now has apparently seen the rift in the clouds and hopes that there is just a chance of rain bringing the water he wants. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) was almost as pessimistic as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. I think that I have answered the majority of the questions. There are a number of smaller issues, vitally important ones, which must be gone into, as hon. Members will agree, on the Committee stage. I believe that in spite of the fact that some Members' fears do not appear to have been allayed in this Debate they themselves have not made it quite clear what it is they want. When they say they want a national policy, what sort of policy is it they have in mind? They say that they want the Minister to take more powers, but they do not say what those powers should be. They have said that they want a little bit more, but what we would like to learn is what that little bit more is, and. if we can find that out we shall then be able to look into their suggestions at the Committee stage.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — WATER [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Resolved:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the con-


servation and use of water resources and for water supplies and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Health in the exercise of his functions under the said Act.—(King's Recommendation signified)—[Mr.Willink.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to Scotland for the acquisition and development of land for planning purposes, for amending the law relating to town and country planning, and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the following payments, that is to say:

A. (1) Payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants to local planning authorities in respect of loan charges on moneys borrowed by them for defraying, or contributing towards, the cost of acquiring or clearing—

(a) areas of extensive war damage, of amounts equal to such loan charges for two years, together with a proportion of the charges for further years up to eight, or in certain cases thirteen, Being a proportion fixed by reference to the extent to which land in an area of extensive war damage remains by reason of war damage incapable of being brought into use for a substantial purpose and so as to provide a substantial return;
(b) land to be used for the re-location of population or industry from areas of extensive war damage or to be used as an open space or otherwise in an undeveloped state in substitution for land in such areas which is so used, of amounts equal to such loan charges for two years, together with half the charges for a further two years;
(c) land for highway purposes relating to such areas or to land to be used as aforesaid, of amounts equal to such loan charges for two years.

(2) Payment into the Exchequer of any sums received in pursuance of the said Act of the present Session in repayment of any such grants.

For the purposes of this paragraph—

(i) local planning authorities shall be deemed to have incurred loan charges on moneys belonging to them which are applied by them for defraying, or contributing towards, such cost as aforesaid as if the moneys had been borrowed on terms to be fixed by the Treasury.
(ii) land appropriated by local planning authorities for any purpose of the said Act of the present Session shall be treated as having been acquired for that purpose out of moneys belonging to them at a cost determined as mentioned in the said Act;

(iii) payments by local planning authorities in respect of restrictions on the development or use of land acquired by them subject to the restrictions shall be treated as a part of the cost of acquiring the land defrayed out of moneys belonging to them.

B. (1) Payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be required to be paid into the Road Fund for the purpose of meeting the cost incurred by the Minister of War Transport of acquiring land for purposes relating to trunk roads as mentioned in the said Act of the present Session.

(2) Payment into the Exchequer of any contributions received by the said Minister from local planning authorities in respect of such cost.

C. Payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses incurred by any Minister under the said Act of the present Session in paying compensation to persons (including statutory undertakers) in respect of the extinguishment or vesting of or interference with rights or servitudes over land or apparatus on land, in complying with conditions imposed in connection with the use of churches or burial grounds, or in making payments to persons displaced in the carrying out of redevelopment.

D. Payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under Section three of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1938, which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(i) extending contributions under the said Act of 1938 to housing accommodation rendered necessary by displacements, occurring in the carrying out of redevelopment of land acquired under the said Act of the present Session, from houses unfit for human habitation;
(ii) providing that any area of land acquired under the said Act of the present Session and used for the purpose of providing housing accommodation under the Housing (Scotland) Acts, 1925 to 1944, as to which the Secretary of State is satisfied that the conditions specified in Sub-section (1) of Section thirteen of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935, exist therein, shall for the purposes of proviso (a) to Subsection (2) of Section one of the said Act of 1938 be deemed to be a redevelopment area;
(iii) providing that if the Secretary of State is satisfied that any area of land acquired as aforesaid could have been acquired under Part 1 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, as being land, in or adjoining, or surrounded by, a clearance area, and that the land includes dwelling houses or other premises which are neither unfit for human habitation nor injurious nor dangerous to health, the dwelling houses and other premises shall for the purpose of the said proviso be deemed to have been purchased under the said Part 1 as being such dwelling houses or other premises as are mentioned in paragraph (ii) of the said proviso.

E. Payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of remuneration and allowances to members of any tribunal constituted under the said Act of the present Session for the assessment of compensation under that Act to statutory undertakers.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — JEWISH REFUGEES (S.S. "PATRIA")

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major A. S. L. Young.]

5.39 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I want to ask the attention of the House to a matter which has been raised once or twice at intervals at Question Time and has been before the consideration of the Colonial Office for a long period. In doing that, I wish to express my regret to my right hon. and gallant Friend who has so many cares on his shoulders that he should have to give so much of his time as he has already done to-day in order to answer my appeal. I would not have ventured to bring this matter before the House if I did not feel that it does concern not only the well-being of a number of very unfortunate individuals, victims of the Nazi persecution, but the good relations of our country and the maintenance of the great traditions of generous sympathy for the oppressed for which this country has stood throughout the centuries.
This group of people about whom I am speaking are those known as the Jewish immigrants, who came to Palestine in 1940 and were confined on arriving there, on the grounds that they had not the necessary legal visas and permits, and they were to have been sent by the Government elsewhere. They were placed, in November, 1940, to the number of about 1,800, on board the French steamship "Patria" which was lying at that time in Haifa harbour. It is quite true that these people had come into Palestine contrary to the regulations of the Government, and we can quite understand the worry and anxiety that was caused to the Palestine authorities by the entrance of immigrants in this way, but I think we have to remember, and I feel sure that the Colonial Secretary will remember, the peculiar conditions under which these people came. They were from Austria, Germany, Czechoslovakia and the satellite countries,

and all of them were under the threat of death. Massacres had already taken place under the orders of the Nazi authorities, and where had they to go? Their thoughts turned to the ancient home of the Jewish people. Some of them, at least, had heard that there was a National Home there, and, at a time of such intense danger, it was natural that they should long to be there and that they managed, somehow or other by different routes, to get on to little ships which brought them to Palestine.
There they landed. They were able to bring with them a small amount, in some cases, of personal belongings which they had saved from the Gestapo and these were all on board the ship "Patria." On 25th November, a terrible explosion took place, resulting in the ship heeling over and almost sinking, and, as a result of that terrible disaster, about 250 of these people lost their lives. There were some 1,500 survivors. The Palestine Government had a commission of inquiry into the cause of the accident, and there was an official communiqué, or summary of this commission's report, issued in Palestine, and from that we can learn that the commission found that the loss of the "Patria" was due to sabotage
by Jewish sympathisers ashore—with the co-operation of at least one person on board the ship. For reasons of caution it will seem unlikely that the saboteurs took into their confidence any considerable number of persons in the 'Patria'.
It was a terrible crime and a terrible disaster. In the loss that had been unhappily wrought in Palestine by terrorists, these unfortunate people were the principal victims, and 250 lost their lives, while a large number of those who survived lost some of those nearest and dearest to them. This terrible punishment in that way fell upon a considerable number of admittedly innocent people. They were all kinds of folk—very old people, and young girls, coming from very different homes, but they all shared this common misfortune. Survivors were removed to the clearance camp at Athlit, and the Palestine Government undertook the salvage of the vessel and the luggage that was left on board it. The Palestine Government Works Department undertook this salvage. Part of the ship was over the water-line, and a considerable amount of luggage was saved and transferred to the Customs sheds in Haifa. It


lay there some time and then the luggage was taken to the camp at Athlit.
At one period, during the time that pleas were being made in Palestine on behalf of these refugees for some compensation for their losses, it was suggested in the Palestine court by a junior advocate of the Government that the Jewish Agency were responsible for the transfer. I have here a copy of a letter—the translation of a letter in Hebrew—from the Jewish Agency office, the original of which was afterwards sent to the Palestine Government, saying that they had nothing whatever to do with it, and that the transfer had been made by the Palestine Police. When the goods arrived, there was a good deal of confusion in the camp. There seems to have been inadequate provision for guarding them, and, when they arrived, it was found that large numbers of cases had been broken open, that valises had been ripped open and that a great deal of luggage was missing. Even when luggage had come from a cabin above the water, other luggage that was in the same cabin was not there. Again and again, it was found that many valuables, fountain pens, watches and all sorts of things had been taken away, together with a large number of suits of clothing and other articles. A great number of empty cases, portfolios or bags was returned to the owners. We have to remember that this was all that these people had, and we can imagine what a loss it meant to them.
I have here two depositions sent with a petition that these people made to the Crown applying for an ex-gratia payment, from which it is quite evident how serious their loss was. The first one—I will read only part of it—is from a former banker, Dr. M. Merdinger, a doctor of laws, who was formerly a bank manager in Vienna:
Part of my own luggage and my wife's belongings were returned to us in a condition which does not leave me in doubt that it was unlawfully interfered with. I had, inter alia, a large rucksack especially made to order for the purpose of my journey to Palestine. When the rucksack was returned to me, I found that its ropes had been cut. The rucksack itself had also been cut, apparently with a knife or a razor. Two new suits had been taken away. From my wife's handbag that had been closed by a zip, the following articles were lacking:—A gold wrist watch, a silver powder box, a golden brooch with pearls, a golden pencil, a silver lipstick, a portefeuille with £2 (English) and 10 Swiss francs. Only a small silver box caught in the lining was re-

turned with the bag. My wife had an umbrella with a costly ivory handle. The umbrella was returned without handle, which had not broken away, but has been screwed from the turn.
That shows that it was not a casual robbery that had taken place, but a very systematic robbery. The second affidavit is from Mr. Ignaz Heinitz, in which he says:
In the camp at Athlit, I was one of the persons charged with the distribution of the articles salvaged from the 'Patria.' One day, under strong rain, a truck, fully laden with various pieces of luggage, drove into Athlit. I noticed at once that a great number of trunks had been considerably damaged, i.e., had been opened by force. Before I permitted the unloading, I fetched the late Mr. Wolf who was bead of the detainees. Mr. Wolf, in the presence of Mr. Arthur Frankl (now in Kiriath Mobykin Camp) inspected the damaged luggage. Mr. Wolf then sent for the acting British Commandant of the Camp, Inspector Stradwick, and a British Sergeaut, to verify the patent robbing. Afterwards Mr. Wolf sent a report concerning the aforementioned facts to the Port police in Haifa, asking for the strictest supervision of the further salvage work. I specially remember that a new big leather trunk, with three broad straps and fitted with locks, had been cut through. I do not remember who was the owner of this trunk. I also remember that one or two sacks were brought into Athlit containing about 70 ladies' bags, all of which had been robbed and partly opened by force.
The courts in Haifa have already convicted in five cases persons for the theft of goods taken from the "Patria" or belonging to passengers on the "Patria." It is evident that there was very real hardship to a very large number of people. They were confined in the camp at Athlit until about the month of August, 1941, and then the Palestine Government decided that they should be allowed to remain in Palestine. I want to give credit to my right hon. and gallant Friend and to the Palestine Government for that wise and humane decision. In the old days, I believe, when a man was condemned to be hanged and the rope broke, he was reprieved, and there the only crime of a large number of these people, those who have survived, had been the crime of coming to the Jewish national home contrary to the particular regulations that were in force at the moment. I think that that was a wise and humane decision on the part of the Government. But they still were in great poverty and need, and to-day many of them are in the utmost need. Some of them have committed suicide since that date, and some


of them, I am told, are still wearing ragged clothing given to them by charitable organisations after their rescue. Some of them have found employment and some are in the Armed Forces of the Crown as volunteers, but the majority are elderly people who could be comforted in this time of distress by even a small payment, in some measure to compensate them for their loss, which would show the good will of this country.
When I raised this question first in the House the reply given on behalf of my right hon. and gallant Friend by the Under - Secretary of State for the Dominions, who was then representing him in the House, was to the effect that the Government could not accept responsibility and he pointed out that one of the difficulties was the sabotage of the "Patria" and that that fact made it difficult to suggest compensation. He said about the pilfering:
I understand that the pilfering did take place after the vessel sank, but I do not know whether it actually took place during the time in which the Palestine Government were in charge.
I asked in a supplementary question:
Will my hon. Friend look into that point and make further inquiries as to whether or no pilfering took place during the salvage?"—
to which he replied:
Yes, Sir.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd September, 1943; Vol. 392, C. 188.]
I have had an opportunity since then of getting some of the facts to lay before the House and it is evident that pilfering must have taken place while the Government Were in charge. This vessel was commandeered by the Government. The remaining luggage was transferred by the Palestine Government Works Department to the sheds in Haifa. It remained in the Customs sheds for a considerable period and it was then transferred, under the conditions I have described, by the Palestine police to the camp at Athlit. It is clear that a large part of the damage must have occurred while the Government had taken charge of these things.
I do not want to make an appeal on legal grounds. These poor people took legal advice and attempted to bring an action in the courts. The Palestine Government objected to it and at one period the Palestine Government legal authorities moved that the case should be struck out

from the court list but that was overruled by the court, and it then went on. It never came to an effective hearing, and in the meantime they had, far more wisely, made an appeal not on legal grounds, but on broader grounds, an appeal for an ex gratia payment. I went, on behalf of these people, to the Colonial Office and I was received most courteously and kindly by the Noble Duke the Under-Secretary in control of the case. He pointed out some of the difficulties and made it clear that the Government could not consider a request for an ex gratia payment while court proceedings were going on. I informed the representative of the refugees in Palestine of this and I heard from him that shortly afterwards, in view of this, they had decided to withdraw their case from the court and proceed simply by petition, and that was done. A petition to the Crown was duly sent forward and, unfortunately, to my great regret, I learnt that the Secretary of State had not felt it right to recommend the Crown to accede to the petition.
I want now to make a further appeal to him and to the House to reconsider that decision. I can understand some of his difficulties and that the Government of Palestine had been particularly annoyed by these emigrants coming in contrary to regulations. This caused all kinds of difficulties. They naturally could not help feeling angry about it and were rightly indignant, and not only felt indignant but felt the sense of the terrible criminal act which caused the explosion on the "Patria" Yet these people were absolutely innocent of that crime. It is not right that the innocent should suffer on behalf of the guilty. Would it increase Arab and Jewish tension if an act of grace such as is suggested was entered upon now?
The devout Arab, to his honour, recognises mercy and compassion as divine attributes. The Arabs honour those in power who show mercy and compassion, and I believe they will honour the Colonial Secretary and the Government of Palestine—if they show it now.

It being Six o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Drewe.]

Mr. Harvey: I feel sure that in showing compassion, as I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to do, he will be living up to the highest traditions of our people, and he will be winning good will, not only among the people immediately concerned but amongst those in every country who feel indignation for the wrongs that they and their kinsmen have suffered. He will earn gratitude in every way for an act of justice and an act of mercy.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: I would like to support the appeal made so movingly and eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey). He has tonight lifted a veil and enabled us to see one picture of Jewish misery of recent times. What the total sum of that misery has been during these last few years we shall probably never know. Many of the victims, alas, are dead and cannot speak, but there are those who have survived, and it is for some of those that an appeal is being made this evening.
I am glad that my hon. Friend has made his appeal on high grounds, not on any question of legal liability. He has asked this question: Is there not a moral liability? It is on the basis of that moral liability that the request is made for an ex gratia payment. These people have suffered much, they have been persecuted, driven from their homes, and their only crime has been that they are Jews. It would not be surprising if, when men and women have suffered so much and without cause, they lost their faith in human nature. I want to suggest, with all respect, that here is an opportunity for them to see human nature from another point of view—an act of generosity that looks beyond the letter of the law and has regard to the spirit.
May I put one other consideration before my right hon. and gallant Friend? We know that relations between the mandatory Power in Palestine and the Palestinian Jews have unhappily been strained. I do not want to stress the point to-night, to assess the blame, but I believe that here is an opportunity to show the British Government from another and, I believe, a truer point of view, as the Government of a people capable of generosity that goes beyond the letter of the law. It is not much that is being asked, and I do not

want to say anything to suggest that this should be done by way of a bribe to win goodwill or favour, but I think it is true that magnanimity in politics is not seldom the highest policy. I venture to say that if my right hon. and gallant Friend could see his way to grant this appeal it would reap a rich reward; but whether he does so or not, I ask him to do it, and let it shine as a good deed in a naughty world.

6.5 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): The hon. Member has raised this question, I know, with great sincerity and with deep feeling. Indeed, all of us are sorry for people who in any circumstances lose their property. Unfortunately, to-day we have reason to sympathise with many millions of people under the same conditions. No doubt the cause which has been so eloquently pleaded by the two hon. Members is a most desirable cause for the contributions of the charitable. Indeed, if the present conditions of these people are anything like those described by the hon. Member, it is a terrible indictment of their own community in Palestine. But, knowing as I do the generosity of those people there, I cannot help feeling that perhaps he has slightly overpainted their present situation. But that is not what I, as a Minister, have to consider. It is not whether the cause is of such an appealing nature as to be a recipient of my private charity, it is whether it is of such a nature that I have to impose upon other people an obligation to make it good. In this case, owing to the situation of Palestine, a grant-aided territory, it means the imposition of this sum upon the taxpayers of this country, many of whom have suffered losses of property just as grievous as this, and equally without any compensation, and for whom speeches just as moving could have been made in this House. Before any Minister could impose upon those people such a burden he would have to make it very plain that there was indeed an obligation upon us, whether legal or, I admit, moral, to make good the loss.
Let us examine the circumstances under which this loss was incurred. In the first place, these 2,000 unfortunate people were part, I do not know whether unwittingly or not, of an organised attempt to defeat the law of Palestine, and to defeat the wish of this House, with which, of


course, some hon. Members disagreed, but which was expressed in the approval of the White Paper policy in 1939. The hon. Gentleman talks about their coming where in a number of small ships, as if they were just a few people here and there, who suddenly said: "Let us go to Palestine," without knowing what the regulations were which precluded their entry, and what formalities had to be gone through beforehand. The 2,000 people arrived there in three ships—evidence, I think, of some organisation—and I cannot think that there was a single soul among them who did not know that before they could legally enter Palestine certain formalities had to be gone through, and that those formalities had not been gone through.

Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that there was something else that they knew, and that we knew, and that was that if they recognised the White Paper passed by this House, and had remained where they were, they would now have died in Hitler's concentration camps?

Colonel Stanley: That does not alter what I said. There was no invitation to them to go there—in fact, they knew they were going there to do an illegal act.

Mr. Silverman: A man is entitled to save his life, surely.

Colonel Stanley: The hon. Gentleman was not interested enough to be here to hear the speech of the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey).

Mr. Silverman: Why does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say that? He knows that I am interested.

Colonel Stanley: The second thing was the cause of this accident. These people were put on the ship, on which they were going to be taken to safety. There was no question of their being returned, or of their running the risk of Nazi oppression. While on the ship the accident occurred, caused, as the Commission which inquired into the matter decided, by the sabotage of members of their own community. There is no suggestion that the Palestine Government were in any way responsible for the loss of the ship. Those were the circumstances which led to the

conditions under which the baggage of these unfortunate people was lost or, in some cases, pilfered.
It was clear that under those circumstances the main point to which any Minister had to address himself was whether, after the accident had occurred, there was any evidence of negligence on the part of the Palestine Government which, had due diligence been exercised, would have prevented this loss. Was there anything more which could have been done either to salvage the goods or to protect them when salvaged until they could be handed over to their owners? I went into that very carefully, because I felt that if it could be shown that there was any negligence pf that kind, then a strong case could be made out for some ex gratia payment. But I have seen no evidence, and no evidence has been produced this afternoon, that there was any such negligence. Of course, the accident was completely unexpected—

Mr. Harvey: There was the evidence of the witness from the camp who pointed out the way in which the luggage arrived, under confused conditions, and the fact that he communicated those conditions to the camp commandant at that time. Is not that evidence?

Colonel Stanley: I submit that there is no evidence at all of any negligence on the part of the Palestine Government. There was an explosion on this ship in the harbour, and, immediately, everybody available, the police, the harbour authorities and boatmen, went out in order, first of all, to save the lives of as many people as they could, and then to get out of the ship as much property as they could. Under those unforeseen circumstances there could be no organised salvage work. All that could possibly be done was to get everybody available to take what they could out of the ship, put it down on the quay, and then try and get out more. That was the commonsense and only thing to do. As soon as it was possible to organise any more formal salvage and proper protection for the luggage that was done; but no suggestion has been made, so far as I know, that any of this loss was known to occur after the time when the Government had been able to make improvised arrangements for the salvage and safeguarding of this luggage.

Major John Morrison: I happened to be in Haifa at that time, and I would like to corroborate everything which my right hon. and gallant Friend has just said.

Colonel Stanley: I cannot admit, on behalf of the Palestine Government—because I do not believe it was a fact—that there was any lack of diligence on their part, or anything more they could have done to prevent this unfortunate loss. It is under those circumstances, both of the accident which led up to this deplorable catastrophe, and the action which the Palestine Government took afterwards, in a situation which was none of their fault, to reduce loss to the minimum, that I came to the conclusion—after most careful consideration, not for the first time to-day, but on petitions which have been put forward several times during the past few years—which I announced to the House, namely, that I felt unable to alter it without any new facts being brought to my notice.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I should like to apologise to my hon. Friend and to the Minister for my inability to be here at the beginning of the Debate. I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech will be read with bitterness and dismay in a great many quarters which are not parties to the dispute at all. It is not merely his persistence in a refusal to make any payment at all, though that seems to me to be bad enough, but I really find it very difficult to say anything with the restraint which the Rules of the House demand about the attitude, the frame of mind, the kind of language he uses about a tragic event of this kind. He talks about the White Paper, about the illegality, about the sabotage precisely as if these people had had an opportunity to choose, precisely as though they had an opportunity of deciding whether they would break some law or other, precisely as though nothing whatever had happened in the world between March, 1938, and 1940. He knows that a great deal had happened. Not merely had the war broken out but Hitler had let it be known that he was pursuing a war of extermination against all these people, a declaration which was not empty words. It might have turned out between 1940 and 1945 that these people's fears were exaggerated. Then

the right hon. and gallant Gentleman might have been entitled to talk as he did. But we know that their fears were not exaggerated. They were well founded. More than two out of three of the Jews living in the place from which these unfortunate people came lived in genuine and well-founded fear of their lives. Everyone knows that, if they had not gone, they would by now be murdered.
What is the use of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman talking about something that happened in these circumstances merely in reference to a White Paper passed in 1938, merely in reference to immigration laws and restrictions in Palestine? We have laws and restrictions in this country but does anyone believe that, if these people had come in a crazy, sinking ship to our shores, we should not have allowed them to land? The Palestine Government took an attitude in regard to these people which would not have been taken by any other civilised Government in the world. I do not believe that, if they had come to Liverpool, London, Southampton, Bristol or Glasgow, anyone would have had the heart to say to them: "You shall not land. We have immigration laws. This is a conspiracy against our immigration system. Go back where you belong."

Colonel Stanley: The hon. Member knows that that is not what the Palestine Government said. There was no suggestion of their going back to where they came from. They were going off to places of safety in the British Empire.

Mr. Silverman: I do not know why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that. Does he really think these people really sank the ship and were prepared to run the risk of suicide merely in order to avoid moving from one place to another? They were in fear and desperate—

Colonel Stanley: The hon. Gentleman is seriously saying that when these people were put on the ship they thought they were going to be sent back to the place from which they had come and that they were not sure they were going to other places of safety inside the British Empire. He has made this serious statement and he should substantiate it.

Mr. Silverman: I am seriously saying what I have said, and what I repeat, that no other country in the world, certainly


no other civilised country, and certainly not this country, would have put these people back on the ship.

Colonel Stanley: That is not what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Silverman: I said that and more—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): If the hon. Gentleman makes a statement of that kind he should confirm it. I must also remind him that Members cannot make more than one speech, And he is putting the Minister in a difficult position when he is not allowed to reply.

Mr. Silverman: I do not understand the Ruling. If I am not within the Rules of Order, I will sit down. As to putting the Minister in a difficult position, I have not done that; he has put himself in a difficult position.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member makes statements of that sort he should substantiate them, for it puts the Minister in an extremely difficult position if he cannot reply.

Mr. Silverman: Perhaps any comment on that point would be better reserved both by the Minister and, may I say with all respect, by you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, until I have completed what I was about to say. I made two statements. One was that no other country in the world would have, put these people back on the ship. I repeat that statement, and it is not denied that these people were put back upon the ship. I say that that was an uncivilised act and an act that would not have been done by any other country in the world. The other statement I made was that these people were in fear that they would have to go back to where they came from—

Colonel Stanley: And "that they were told to go back."

Mr. Silverman: I did not say it was anybody's intention in Palestine to send them back to Germany or Austria. I have never said that—

Colonel Stanley: Colonel Stanley rose—

Mr. Silverman: I have only a few minutes left—

Colonel Stanley: The House will be able to read what the hon. Member said.

Mr. Silverman: If there is anything I have said which goes beyond the facts, I shall be happy to withdraw it.

Major Studholme: May I interrupt?

Mr. Silverman: I do not think I ought to be asked to give way again. I say that these people went back on the ship in fear and trembling. Whatever they had been told, and whatever the intentions of the authorities, the fact that the ship was sunk by the act of some among them, the fact that they took the risk of being drowned rather than leave, is surely evidence from which any intelligent and fair-minded man would draw the inference that these people were in fear, trembling and terror. It was the act of people who were desperate and that desperation was induced by the refusal of the Palestine Government to allow them to land in circumstances in which they would have been allowed to land by any other country in the world. What I missed from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech was any appreciation of those circumstances. He contented himself with the cold, legal formalism of a White Paper passed two years before in quite different circumstances and with the duty of the immigration authorities in Palestine. Nobody complained of their doing their duty, but duties of that kind have to be done with humanity and according to civilised practice. No harm would have been done had these people been allowed to land, as ultimately what was left of them were allowed to do.
I should have thought that, in the light of everything that has happened since, in the light of all we now know, knowing that policies do change according to changed circumstances, knowing that difficulties that arise owing to a conflict of perfectly sincerely held views may be smoothed away, when there is a handful of individuals like this, whose property has been stolen in circumstances like those, I should have thought that a Government like this, and a Minister like this one, with his well-known humanity and generosity of spirit, might have found it in their hearts to say: "There is not much involved here, and that contribution we will make as some recognition of the tragedy which overtook these few hundreds of innocent victims of the barbarism that we are all fighting together." I do not think any harm would have been done


by that, and there would have been no loss of prestige or of legality of any kind.
It does not really redound to anybody's credit that we should have a Debate of this kind, with recriminations, with arguments, and stone-wall resistance from the Government to a claim based in the end on mere humanity, a claim that would not really cost the taxpayers of this country very much. I urge the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to look at this matter again; to leave out the legal aspects of it, because they do not really matter, to leave out the fact that there has been, as there undoubtedly was, a defiance of the decision reached two years before by this House; to look at it as a human problem and as the claim of a few hundreds of human flotsam and jetsam, the result of the barbarity of our times. If he can do something to relieve these people, without any great loss or any sacrifice of principle, would it not be better to do it?

6.27 p.m.

Major John Morrison: I sincerely appreciate the motives of the hon. Gentleman who brought this question up originally this evening, but I would like to support my right hon. and gallant Friend. I was actually in Haifa on the day when this ship arrived, as an ordinary regimental soldier, and so far as I remember there was never any question of these unfortunate people being sent back to the Nazis. I remember that unfortunate day and I can see the ship now, as she lay in the harbour, overturned. As my right hon. and gallant Friend has said, a number of boats went out to rescue the people, as far as was possible. It is remarkable to me that any of the gear and kit of those unfortunate people was rescued at all. There was not much of the ship showing above the water line, and I think it was remarkable that any of

the stuff could be saved at all. I think we have escaped the actual point a little bit. The gear of those people, which they unfortunately lost, was their personal belongings, and it was lost when they were on the ship and through no fault of the British Government.

Mr. Silverman: A lot of it was lost after that.

Major Morrison: I very much doubt it.

Mr. Silverman: Oh, yes. The hon. and gallant Member must take that as a fact.

Major Morrison: I am telling the House what I feel about it. If other people in this war are to have claims on the Government for everything that they have lost, in many ways and in many countries, there will be a liability which it would be quite unfair to impose on the Government. As far as I remember, that unfortunate day in Haifa entailed the loss of considerable life, as we have heard. Those men and women, when they were taken off the ship, went to the internment camp at Athlit about ten miles down the coast, where a number of other people were locked up. It was there that they spent their time in comparative comfort. I went round to look at that camp. Then they were ultimately released, as we have heard, on the decision of the Palestine Government. When we consider the whole position, I think other hon. Members will agree with me that it is not fair or right that we should expect the Government, or the Government of Palestine; to pay for the loss, which was no fault of the Government of this country or of the Government of Palestine.

It being half past Six o'Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.